In response to:

25 People, Places, And Things Liberals Love To Hate

Peter906 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 12:10 PM
I am struck by the assumption that liberals hate. (I am also struck by the frequent assumption that conservatives hate.) Do conservatives hate? Hate does not seem to me to be a good or effective political feeling or response. I suspect that, when someone says he 'hates' guns, or Bush, or Obama, he hates (disagrees strongly with) contemporary gun policies or with Bush's or Obama's policies. One can hate evil, and perhaps the discourse of hate came to the fore in US politics in connection with abortion (for the right) and US's murderous wars of empire (Viet-Nam, Iraq) on the left. But there are many reasonable people for whom neither abortion nor war is evil ....
johnm h Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 12:29 PM
US wars of empire? Another false narrative. The Mexican American and Spanish American wars were for empire, but Iraq and Viet Nam.? Both may have been stupid and profoundly misguided and stupidly fought but they were not for empire, or for oil.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 12:35 PM
Viet Nam wasn't for empire, but it was imperialism in action nonetheless. Many who think otherwise neglect to consider hegemony as a form of imperilaism. Iraq was definitely for oil.
johnm h Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 12:52 PM
The first gulf war was to keep Iraq from dominating oil, but the second was not for oil. Vietnam was born of arrogance, overconfidence by the liberal's best and brightest and lack of understanding of the Cuban missal crisis, and to keep the communists from dominating SE Asia. It was also a misunderstanding of containment. Only Marxists saw it in broader terms of imperialism. Stupidity, political cowardice and undirected mission creep are always better explanations than conspiracy.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 2:00 PM
The first gulf war was about oil. YOu git that part right. The second gulf war was about asserting American hegemony in the middle east, which matters only because of oil. A>B>C.

Viet Nam was a continuation of the French imperialist impulse. Its ridiculous to sya only Marxists saw it as imperialism. It's more accurate to say only a cohort of Americans did NOT see it as imperialism. But I would not call it a conspiracy either.
MudontheTires Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 3:10 PM
"Many who think otherwise neglect to consider hegemony as a form of imperilaism."

Kind of like when communists force themselves on unwilling populations, right?

" Iraq was definitely for oil."

According to who? The Taliban?
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 3:50 PM
The Vietnam War was to prevent the Communist North from conquering the non-Communist South. The Communists and their allies in this country won. There is no dichotomy between imperialism and empire. Seeking empire is what makes one imperialistic. If it wasn't for empire, it wasn't imperialism.
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 3:53 PM
All about oil? And all the while i thought it had something to do with the invasion of Kuwait.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Jan 12, 2013 12:28 PM
Peter, take a breath. Hawkins is using "hate" in the colloquial sense.

1) Guns for making all those poor innocent criminals break the law.

2) The old, dead white guys who founded America and their ridiculous, outdated Constitution that doesn't mention global warming or limits on soda size even once.

3) Nosy voters who ask questions like, "What kind of change?" and "Forward to where?"

4) Adorable little kids who want to run lemonade stands...WITHOUT A PERMIT!

5) The fact that Sarah Palin is the single best feminist role model in a generation while the Left's #1 feminist role model, Hillary Clinton, built her whole career around marrying the right guy.

6) Deciding...