Quote:

Chant said:
Would you agree, Wonder Boy, that not all Liberals are spewing venom filled at your administration, would you agree that conservatives too, is part of the "mud-casting contest"?

I am a liberal, and I am pro-war against Saddam, though I am not an american.

But it seems to me that both sides are throwing mud at each other......not unlike your presidential election.

Ps. I'm not trying to degrade anyone, hope you don't take it the wrong way



I agree, Chant, that not all liberals are spewing venom and lies at Republicans.
I've listed several prominent liberals whose constructively critical views of Bush foreign/military policy I respect and often agree with: Sen. Joseph Biden and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, to name two.

And certainly, Chant, you know before I say it that my comments are not aimed at you, or at others like you, who don't make the inflammatory statements that many other liberals do here on the boards, and similar liberal/Democrat rhetoric we see nightly on the national news.

I've been clear in past discussions where I disagree with you on the issues, Chant. And I appreciate that you can disagree respectfully, and in your case certainly do the same.

As I said across several topics, both liberals and conservatives have good ideas, and it is by having an open debate where all views are heard, and selecting from all views expressed what are the best ideas for governing our nation.
As opposed to propaganda wars, where the nastiest infighter wins, instead of the best ideas.

I just see how Bush is being attacked, and I think liberals in government and the media paint a tremendously distorted picture.
There is no balance to the reporting, or to the rhetoric of Democrat leaders.

And as I've ALSO said across several topics, how can conservative views be fairly weighed, if they're dismissively ignored?
Look at the protest signs in Whomod's posts.
Look at the "representative" slogans of liberal/Democrat protest signs that Matter Eater Man posted.

You are a reasonable liberal, Chant. Do you truly have no problem with that kind of liberal rhetoric? It is pure slander, pure acid. There is no discussion of the issues by liberals.
They assume that Bush, Cheney, etc., are evil, greedy, getting kickbacks, lining their pockets, wanting to use nukes on people, goose-stepping Nazis, on and on.
Without evidence.
Without facts.
Just bitter insinuation of Republican action and intent.

Is that fair?
Is that logical?
Is it appealing to reason, and encouraging a civil and democratic debate for the best solution?

Or is it angry distorted hate labels, targeted to unfairly slander Republicans ?

Did you hear what Matter Eater Man was just saying about those who served in our National Guard, and how he equates serving in the National Guard as no better than draft evasion ?
Do you, as a liberal, have a problem with that? I sure as hell do.

I think in the early 60's, I might have been more open to being a liberal. Liberalism in that era was more optimistic, more focused on making the future a better place, being conscientious, and working toward a better world.
At least in the surface rhetoric of liberals of that era, as exemplified in J.F.K.'s presidential speeches, and Martin Luther King. Perhaps from 1961-1965 I could have been a liberal, before liberalism turned anti-American.

But the results of liberal programs speak for themselves in their destruction of our culture:
the war on poverty, expanded drug use, expanded teen pregnancy, total secularization of our schools, legalized abortion (the number of abortions performed since 1973 now exceeds all military and civilian deaths during WW II), creating a cultural slide into increasingly high divorce rates, rising child abuse, teenagers shooting up their schools, gang violence, and the general lowering of the bar in virtually every aspect of our culture.

For the last 25 years, I've seen liberalism as blindly condemning military action, and blindly attacking conservatives no matter what the evidence.
And the current "Bush is an idiot" rhetoric is just a slightly more blatant continuation of the biased liberal media attacks on the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations, where no credit is ever given to conservatives, and blame is completely heaped on Republicans, and liberals/Democrats (and a complicit liberal-dominated media) give their own a free pass, no matter what the evidence.


This nonsense with Richard Clarke is a prime example.

Clinton could have gone into homeland security overdrive after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Or after the Saudi Arabian Khobar tower bombing in 1995. Or after the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or after the U.S.S. Cole bombing in October 2000.
8 years of terrorism.
I say it again: eight years !!!!

And yet it's all Bush's fault, because he was in office 7 months when the bombing occurred?
Even the partisan Richard Clarke grudgingly acknowledged, when asked by a Republican Senator during the hearings, asked if Bush had taken all the suggestions Clark had given, would it have prevented 9-11? And Clark answered "No".

I also hasten to add, NO ONE on the Republican side alleged in those 8 years that Clinton could have prevented any ONE of these attacks, or bitterly alleged that Clinton bore sole, or even primary, responsibility for the bombings.
Contrast this with the current divisive rhetoric of the Democrats againt Bush.
Without evidence, no less.
So the blame-game is a creation of the Democrats.

I'm hard pressed to name one example of Republican partisanship or venom. I see it as Democrats making up false allegations, bitterly false allegations, and Republicans being justifiably angry, and being forced to respond to them.

And I wonder how you, Chant, as a reasonable liberal, can be okay with the bitter tactics and bitter unfounded allegations, and utter lack of civility, of your brother liberals.

Never once in the three years of relentless allegations and conspiracy theories against Bush have I ever heard a liberal say: well geez, you know, this particular allegation is pretty unfair to Bush...