Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: ANTI-LIBERAL ZONE

The Ideology of Liberalism or a People without a Conscience...

85 Comments
Monday, May, 12, 2008 7:28 AM Gray Ghost writes:

Gunny

I truly believe the "Liberal" leaders don't believe any of the sh*t they "peddle". They are trying to get power and money and this best way they can do it.

The "Liberal Sheep" believe this sh*t because they are sheep and don't know better. (They think without using their brains.)

Education is the key to stop the spread of "Liberalism".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 7:29 AM caday5 writes:

Gunny

More issue avoidance and character assassination. At least if you were going to engage in character assassination, you could try to be correct.

You probably consider me a liberal so I will talk about some of my beliefs.

1. I oppose all elective abortions. I think they should be illegal. I have both written about the subject (i.e. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_curt_day_070104_wh y_being_pro_life_s.htm)
and participated in protests.

2. I support the death penalty.

3. I believe in locally determined gun regulations. Support gun regulations does not imply one is against owning guns, it merely means there should be accountability and restrictions.

4. I don't vote for people who have been convicted of crimes. But some conservatives do. Two examples are Larry Craig and that guy who was caught sending those text messages to male pages. In both cases, their activities were well-known before their behavior became news stories and conservatives kept reelecting them. It is only when what these two did became news items that they were voted out.

5. I don't support the actions you listed by the Children's Hospital of Boston.

6. Remember that when you prosecute a war, like Iraq, or support an occupation, like Palestine, your military either deliberately or inadvertently kill born and unborn children. Currently, occupied Iraq provides worse health conditions than pre-war Iraq.

7. Remember that when you give corporations free-reign then you let them cause devastations like what we see in Haiti. There, as well as parts of India, our agribusinesses either are driving or have driven local farmers out of business. The result in Haiti is a food shortage. The result in India has been a sharp increase in the suicides of farmers because of debt owed to our agribusinesses.

And btw, my liberal friends with whom I hang out do not look down on me for any of my views.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:24 AM clyde writes:

Gunny

Excellent summary of liberalism. Ought to get their heads spinning for sure. The sad part is how EASY it is to become a liberal,just gotta "feel" rather than think.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:33 AM YLG writes:

GunnyG

I can only say, THANK GOD I woke up when I did!!

To think, I used to believe this crap. Amazing what one little question does to promote logic in the brain, doesn't it?

Thanks for a great blog article this AM!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:22 AM Gray Ghost writes:

PS: Gunny

I also note that Feinstein has a carry permit. This so reminds me of the great cartoon strip "Pogo". There is a classic line in the strip that says: "We are all created equal, some of us are a little more equal than others."

caday5 tries to do the typical "Liberal/Socialist/Communist argument that I and my friends don't believe any of what you Gunny write about Liberals. She than proceeds to disagree with herself.

"I believe in locally determined gun regulations. Support of gun regulations does not imply one is against owning guns, it merely means there should be accountability and restrictions."

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you caday5 not understand? The accountability is in the enforcement of laws (you use a gun illegally and you go to jail).

In caday5's case she is just as biased as the typical Liberal. Only he tries to look as if he is reasonable. Once I gave him a list of web sites which show Al Quida's involvement in Iraq prior to the war. If he went and looked at them, he never mentioned it. I suspect he did; but they don't fit in with his pre-conceived concepts.

There is No point in answering him. He is just a "Liberal Troll".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 10:48 AM nanna writes:

Great article Gunny

It describes liberals to a "T".

What is so heartbreaking is that this year, we have a choice between a big liberal, a liberal, and an almost liberal.
McCain is going out on a global warming run this week. In July, he is meeting with La Raza. What can we do?
If we don't vote for the Republican, then we will effectively vote in someone that espouses all of the things you wrote about.

I'm for,as you said, starting a conservatives party.Sounds really good to me!!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 10:56 AM Buck writes:

nanna

A conservative party in the formative stages. Check out C-Fish's blog for more info.
The ideas are here.
The people are here.
All we gotta do is pull it together.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 11:12 AM Buck writes:

Liberal thought...

Okay they want to ban guns. Which means in a lot of places if I defend my life by shooting a home invader... I WILL GO TO JAIL.

They are so caring about life they will fight for years to save some garbage like Tookie whoever from execution. Then haul butt down to the local abortionists to ...correct the effects... of too much wine and cheese last month.

They call the United States of America a warmonger, colonialist state. Then stand in line to kiss the derrier of REAL warmongers, colonialists, thugs and despotic rulers.

Capitalism and free will are bad but socialism, collectivism and tyranny are good.

Question one and he will drop his chin so as to sniff his penoir caca, look over his Adlai Stevenson horn rim glasses and say something like, "I'm afraid it is a little too complicated to explain to you..." Or some such drivel...

Ever notice how they can NEVER admit error? They pass a law that is unenforcable they cannot admit the law is unenforcable...they just pass another law stating that it is against the law not to abide by the first law... gulp
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 11:31 AM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

In fact, I did mention those websites on your blog and I listed a problem that you never responded to. The contents of those websites contradict what our own gov't says and that contradiction is striking because it would serve the gov't's purposes to point out that material and agree with the contents. The problem is that they didn't. In addition, the credibility of those websites have been significantly challenged, which I can go into later, and all of the sources you listed come from neocons or neocon supporters.

And finally, on your website, when you listed the stats on military deaths during the Clinton administration, the figures you listed did not agree with the reference you gave and you never acknowledged that. You reported that the number of troops who died during the Clinton Presidency was 14,000 but the figures from the reference you gave only total 7,500.

Perhaps you want to address the above points here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:07 PM Steve writes:

Dear GunnyG

I see that Caddy's trying to nitpick herself out of her moral morass again. Rather desperately, it seems!

That's because you have just given us one of your best dissertations ever. Congratulations!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:21 PM Gray Ghost writes:

caday5

Go To H*ll, you friggin idiot. All your sites were by Liberals, so you just contradicted yourself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:36 PM Gray Ghost writes:

One other Thing caday5

You didn't comment on my own personal blog of 04/30/2007 ("Abdul Hadi al Iraqi Captured"). This man was a Major in Saddam's Iraqi Army and had been a member of Al Quida since the Soviet occupation of Afganistan. NO ARMY IN THE WORLD ALLOWS AN OFFICER TO BE A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT THEY (the army) ARE NOT TOTALLY ALLIED TO.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:40 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Gray Ghost

I totally agree. THAT is the reason that they have dumbed down America. Easier to spoon out the pablum.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:41 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

clyde

My resident troll is already doing the "head spin" thing ala the Exorcist!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:42 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

caday5

I hate to disabuse you but this is not all about YOU! It's about your kin, your ilk, your associates, your fellow travelers, your PARTY! Is THAT clear enough for you?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:43 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

YLG

I too thank God that you saw the light. May you help many others to see the light.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:54 PM Nee writes:

Well, GG

I'm not surprised. Caday taking it personal and natch Gray, that all the sites listed were liberal. That's the way they work. Just like HalD will never come to Gunny's site or read what I write, he expects everyone to heed his huffpo sheisse and not question it. Ooh, I need a barf bucket!!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 12:54 PM Nee writes:

PS

Fun post up at the BNC...
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 1:15 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Gray Ghost

I hear you. I love debating liberals and tying them up in knots!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 2:27 PM Lolo1 writes:

GunnyG

The ends justify the means is the liberal mantra. They will lie, cheat, steal and re-write history all in the name of winning.

Every word you wrote is true. I live in liberal land and experience it daily.

Thank you for the great blog!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 2:30 PM Lolo1 writes:

caday5

Get your facts straight. For starters Craig and the guy who sent text messages were in office already. they were not elected after the fact. One was forced out and the other we are working to get rid of. But on the other hand why should Craig leave when Democrats leave their reprobates in office?

Your beliefs do not match your party or voting record.

Cop a clue dude.

Oh and your libs friends don't look down on you because you vote with them.

Again...cop a clue dude!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 3:54 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Actually, I have cited what the White House said and a Pentagon report--these do not originate from liberal sites.

I don't blame you for that one note on your website listing the wrong fatality stats during the Clinton era (pronounce error by conservatives). Your trusted someone for the info and they were wrong. But you could have acknowledged it afterwards. In addition, there is no call for your anger toward me here.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 3:56 PM caday5 writes:

Lolo1

I think the other one was Foley. The problem is is that there problems were known so long ago, yous guys did have time to get rid of them and didn't.

My only point in bringing this up is that one side wants to claim morally superiority and I think that both sides have too many sins to do that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 3:58 PM caday5 writes:

Gray Ghost

Again, contacts carry no implication. It is the Pentagon, amongst others that say there was no cooperation. Contacts and such should be expected. But I will be glad to look that up again.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 4:02 PM caday5 writes:

Gunny

Basically you implied a universal quantifier when talking about libs and I know you consider me to be one. But of the "libs" I know, they are all over the map with regards to issues like abortion and such. I know many "libs" who would disagree with the ones you cited in your note.

Your problem is that to get the emotional reaction you want, you speak about libs as if they were this monolithic group and they are not. I know a number of "libs" who oppose abortion--I was just talking to one last week.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 5:32 PM KenUSA writes:

Gunny

Thomas Aquinas said that a mistake made early is a mistake indeed. The first mistake is elevating yourself to the position of consultant to the overworked, scatter-brained deity, or demoting the same deity to petty, vengeful coworker.

Do either of those and the slide into liberalism is absolutely assured.

Another stroke of genius on their part is to take a page from the gangbangers. Get the pledge to commit a heinous "initiation" crime, usually a murder. Then you've got 2 things:

1) Material for blackmail
2) A kid that won't judge another for fear of looking at himself

Abortion is the initiation crime of today's libs
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 7:18 PM Bill_H writes:

Pretty good post

Gunny, you did not miss a thing. It's nice to see a person that can think for themself and defend the freedoms of our country.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:13 PM CKHustler writes:

caday5

many many liberals I know match most if not all of what Gunny is talking about. So, I can see the exact truth in what he says and laugh about it since it is so true.

On deaths during Clinton. 7500? Isn't that still more than during Bush in Iraq?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:16 PM CKHustler writes:

GunnyG

Spectacular post. It really brings the total liberal to light. I have a friend in which I enlighten her little by little because she is totally uneducated on so many subjects yet hates bush. She even had the gal to say that Kerry should not have given up so easily in 2004...like he should have challenged the election. I almost fell off my chair. i couldn't laugh in her face though, she is a close friend and she would get very angry if I did. lol
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:27 PM not going to tell you writes:

caday 5

You are just a liberal elitist idiot. You don't make any sense because your ceaseless tirade of inconvenient facts does not jive with the stuff I hear/read on my favorite radio shows and websites. You must hate America. Are you a terrorist?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 8:41 PM CKHustler writes:

Bob Barr for president!

just wanted everyone to know. :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:22 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

KenUSA

You got that right amigo.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:25 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Lolo1

Thanks for the kudos. I myself love the hate mail I get via:

libsmustdie@gmail.com

Keep it coming libs, it lets me know I'm kicking your A**ES!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:26 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Jon33

Thanks for swinging by and commenting. Please let me know when you post a new one so I can swing by.

Keep up the fight, we're winning.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:27 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

CKHustler

caday5 forgets the 800K Rwandans butchered as Clinton stood by. Indeed, the Impeached One ADMITTED that he could do more.

Pathetic.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:30 PM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

Steve

Thanks for the kudos. It cracks me up to read caday5's posts BUT, it should be noted, caday5 is the ONLY lib showing up here to defend the faith, lame as it is.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:37 PM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

You are correct with regards to the number of deaths under Clinton vs the number of military deaths in Iraq. However, the number of military deaths under Bush in 6 years exceeds the number of military deaths under Clinton in 8 years

2001--- 891
2002--- 999
2003---1,228
2004---1,874
2005---1,942
2006---1,858
Total 8,792

The number of military deaths under Reagan is over 17,000 if I added correctly. The website in Gray Ghost's blog is http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf.

The stats are on pg crs-7 and crs-8.

BTW, the newest article I just saw from Yahoo showed that younger Christian Evangelicals are moving to the Left--though this does not imply they are becoming Democrats. It should interesting to see the impact of this move on the Left.

As for Gunny's note, it reminds me of the same rhetoric that I hear from those on the left when they complain about conservatives. At that point, both sides remind me of the Pharisee in Jesus' parable on the two men praying. The Pharisee was all about congratulating himself for his own righteousness and putting down the tax collector. Unfortunately for the Pharisee, God did not share his analysis.

From my point of view, both those on the right and those on the left have valid concerns and some good directions. But both have faults too. For example, I do not count those who either embrace or passively accept a system that results in social darwinism as being superior to those who offer the cradle to grave guarantee. At the same time, I reject the philosophy that allows for elective abortion making the definition of human life relative and thus precarious for both the pre and post born.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:43 PM caday5 writes:

Gunny

I thought I would provide a link for you to an article written by leftist historian William Blum who made the same point you made when referring to those from Rwanda who were slaughtered--though he did not include their number. So here, you are making the same point as this leftist. Small world isn't it?

http://www.counterpunch.com/blum10202006.html

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 9:46 PM caday5 writes:

not going to tell you

Does your radio only receive Clear Channel communications stations?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 10:42 PM not going to tell you writes:

caday 5

Good point - and I have Sirius satellite as well. Their idea of "left" is 1 hr each of Tom Hartman (2AM) and Ed Shultz, and 3 hours each of Lynn Samuels, and other lefty impersonators. Amazing.

Yet, there are at least 3 rabid neocon channels on Sirius. Who's paying those bills?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, May, 12, 2008 11:04 PM not going to tell you writes:

gunny

You seem to have no substantive response to caday, other than to give attaboys to other posters who agree with you. Your entire column has been gutted and you have no response. I'm temped to suggest that you've got nothing - no place to argue from - because of the clarity and well-supported nature of caday's writings on this blog.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 12:37 AM CKHustler writes:

C5

so really as we see the decline in military deaths...clearly by your stats there...another couple years will be what...3k more deaths? maybe 4k? and during that time we didn't allow millions to die at the hands of tyrants. We have freed millions of people. No matter what your news sources are saying, I have talked to marines over there right now and the Iraqi people want us there. They are building schools and hospitals and getting back to normal life, only this time they are free. 4,000 soldiers freed millions of people and we salute them for their bravery and courage for VOLUNTEERING to go into the military.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 12:47 AM CKHustler writes:

4000

I was referring to the difference in death rates. I reread that and thought that might be a tough one to get out of that.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 4:00 AM ManMountain writes:

caday5 writes;

3. I believe in locally determined gun regulations. Support gun regulations does not imply one is against owning guns, it merely means there should be accountability and restrictions.


The problem is that there are already over 2000 laws on the books dealing with firearms. Lets start enforcing those before we add more just so you can feel good that something is "finally" being done. The firearms industry is the most regulated industry in the country.

4. I don't vote for people who have been convicted of crimes. But some conservatives do. Two examples are Larry Craig and that guy who was caught sending those text messages to male pages. In both cases, their activities were well-known before their behavior became news stories and conservatives kept reelecting them. It is only when what these two did became news items that they were voted out.

You point to a few who slipped through the cracks but eventually we weed them out and they are gone. If you are old enough to remember the 60's, you will remember that Tom Hayden (the original Mr Jane Fonda) Jesse Jackson, and Hanoi John Kerry were some of the most radical and conducted illegal activities prior to being elected to public office. Kerry still remains in office after Karter commuted his dishonorable discharge and ignored his treasonous trip to Paris to meet with the North Vietnam delegation. With all the evidence of illegal activities by Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, the Clinton's, the question still remains, why are they still in office? Where is the call to oust them?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 6:41 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

not going to tell you

Hey moron, didn't know I had to justify myself to a dumba** libsquirt. My examples are in the essay and if you're too dumb to understand them, I suggest that you stay at the DailyKoS, the writing there is nearer your level...

Barney-style.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 6:46 AM Gunny "knuckles" G© writes:

man mountain

Good point on the amount of gun regulations.

What cracks me up is that liberals LOVE writing more and more regulations so that they can nitpick us to death. When I hear libmorons talking about putting serial numbers on caertridge casings, I have to, as Hal Drunkahue, says, LMAO!

caday5 is typical of the liberal apologists who cover for their kind daily. I have dumba** relatives like that, who whined about clinton's excesses and then voted for him, not once but twice. Now THAT is stupid.

Like burning your hand on a hot stove and then DOING IT AGAIN! Liberals prove THEMSELVES stupid, I don't have to do anything but post it!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 7:03 AM caday5 writes:

ManMountain

What were Kerry and Fonda convicted of? What were Reid and Pelosi convicted of?

With regards to the firearms industry, they seem to have survived all that regulation ok.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 7:04 AM caday5 writes:

Gunny

Then I must not be stupid because I never voted for Clinton. We must be on the same level.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 7:15 AM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

But we haven't freed millions of Iraqis, we merely enslaved them to occupation, a decimated infrastructure, and ongoing violence with a civilian casualty rate that is 80% at the minimum. And the Bush administration was warned about all of the consequences beforehand and never let on that they were informed. I guess if sewage is in street and having 1 hour of electricity along with our problems with major contractor fraud is normal life, then you have a point. This thing of us building schools and hospitals is old fake news.

I just had lunch with a very conservative friend of mine who just talked to a soldier returning from Iraq. One of the things the soldier commented on to my friend is that the Iraqis do not want us to stay there. Other soldiers have reported the same. And the polls have consistently indicated that starting with the 2005 British Ministry of Defense.

In the meantime we are building permanent bases and going over the Iraqi Parliaments head to privatize Iraqi Oil and to enable our oil companies to control much of their oil--like our permanent bases, against the will of the Iraqi people.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 8:17 AM not going to tell you writes:

gunny

there you go with your school yard name calling. If I thought you understood what a moron actually was (eg. someone who has been brainwashed to vote and act against their own self interests - like most "conservatives" these days) I might be offended. Again, I don't read dailyKos. Can you get it through your skull that a conservative might disagree with much of your hate blog?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 12:14 PM Steve writes:

False Colors

Dear GunnyG:

Caddy's a Christian and EVF's a conservative. Me... I'm a Zen Bhuddist! Why is it, do you think, that liberals have this apparent aversion to "sailing under their true colors"?

The answer is, of course, self-evident. Unless they disguise themselves and their agenda under a barrage of false rhetoric and standing, their message is rejected. They must formulate the debate themselves on a false and controllable basis. For a long time, they were able to do this on all levels. Now, with the rise of the internet, talk radio and outlets like Fox News, their dominance of public discourse is threatened.

So they "troll in" here. That's a compliment to you, as it shows you're considered a viable threat. It also reveals their innate arrogance, since they apparently believe they can sway "Heartland Hicks" with their glibeness. It also, I believe, reveals a bit of desperation. To remain dominant, liberals MUST control the news and debates... completely. It's their biggest Achilles' heel.

So let's keep hamstringing them! In the end, they're their own worst enemies. But they retain the potential to bring down this country and Western Civilization with it. That fact must never be overlooked. The enemy in our midst is always the most dangerous of all.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 1:52 PM caday5 writes:

Steve

And some conservatives, not all, are addicted to being flattered.

It is easy on this medium to make any accusation because no one requires proof. That is why people like myself are constant accused of supporting the Democrats, again I am voting for Nader, or you might find it hard to believe that people like me are Christians.

But again, your one note to Gunny shows that addition to being flattered.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 9:22 PM not going to tell you writes:

caday 5

Nader - you are joking, right?

A vote for Nader is simply one less vote against McCain. If your response is that your conscience won't let you vote for the democratic nominee, then maybe you should move to Canada. The fact that Nader can't win is clear. Your self-centered viewpoint on this issue needs reconsideration.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 9:32 PM CKHustler writes:

C5

So your saying 80% of the civilians are dying?

"with a civilian casualty rate that is 80% at the minimum."

great exaggeration of facts.

i would like to know how long it took to make Japan what it is today. how about Germany? We still have troops in Germany and all over the world as well.

The Iraqi process is moving forward. Their congress has gotten more done than our congress who just seems bent on censuring people (civilians).

I have a friend who went to Iraq in March and calls me about once a month to talk. He says things are 10 times better than his first tour of duty and the iraqi military does basically everything. He also says how the civilian population is much more grateful we are there this time around as well. They see the light at the end of the tunnels, they know if we leave they all die. I don't know about you, but I do not want another Vietnam. Fool America once liberals, shame on us...fool us twice liberals, shame on you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 9:43 PM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

Actually the 80% is verifiable. It is the casualty rate of most recent wars and if you check the icasualties.org website (http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx), you will find that the last time the civilian casualty rate was below 80% was April, 2006.

Now this website gives an admittedly low estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths. But regardless of where you go, the civilian casualty rate is extremely high.

BTW, recent Pentagon reports say that the conflict is up in the air. As for whether things are better, the consensus opinion is that after the spike of violence in the latter part of 2006 thru to the middle of 2007, the level of violence is now comparable with 2005. The living conditions are horrible.

Some on left do not agree that Iraq and Vietnam are comparable. But I think that there is an area where the whole war on terror is comparable to Vietnam, that area is that there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of terrors that we cannot address. In fact, the more violence we use, the more we recruit for our enemies.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 9:45 PM caday5 writes:

not going to tell you

I refuse to be in voting between the them and not them party. In either case, neither party represents me. And the longer we stay with the 2 party system, the less incentive there is for both major parties to truly change and present the people.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 13, 2008 10:34 PM not going to tell you writes:

Caday

Wow - you "refuse", huh?

You go ahead and take your little meaningless stand - like those who enabled Bush in 00 and 04 - was that you back then too? If so, did you not learn anything?

I have read your comments and reached the conclusion that you are a very intelligent and well-read person. Please don't let arrogance cloud your decision-making at this critical time.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 7:11 AM caday5 writes:

not going to tell youA

I will respectfully disagree with you and suggest that arrogance belongs on the side of those who tell me that I am wasting my vote when my vote is for the candidate that best represents me.

There will never be a good time not to vote against the Republicans because of their war policies. But, the democrats are not any better when it comes to war. Jonah Goldberg points out the follies of the "liberal" Woodrow Wilson presidency as an example and Howard Zinn makes the point that "liberal" expansionism is the most extreme form of expansionism.

A number have sources have written about the non-anti-war positions of the Democrats including articles in the Toronto Star and Christ Hedges.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 8:23 AM not going to tell you writes:

caday

And remember Kennedy started VietNam - Johnson continued it...so? Would you have voted for Nixon in 1960?

If you think voting for Ralph Nader is going to do anything to prevent war, I think you need to give this some more thought. Ralph Nader cannot be elected - this is a fact. Your selfish vote for him will take a vote away from the only alternative to the neo-cons we have - the democrat. I don't like the choice either, but I'm not going to waste my vote by enabling McCain's election.

I guess I'm right that you enabled Bush the past 2 elections - how do or Nader sleep? You enabled the Iraq war with your silly little stand. You bear as much if not more blame for how bad things have gone for the past 7 years - and the deaths - than the neocons. Thanks a lot.

We are never going to get to a point where a realistic 3rd party candidate can win unless we start fixing things in DC. McCain's just going to make things worse, while the democrats at least seem to have a chance to get us back to a representative form of government.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 9:18 AM Curtal Friar writes:

GunnyG

Thanks for this article. I will be printing it off to save it for myself and to have my son read when he's old enough.

I will also send the link to many people, because it needs to be read.

I admire your hard-hitting, take no prisoners style.

Keep up the good work!

GOD BLESS AMERICA

PRAY FOR AND SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 9:42 AM caday5 writes:

not going to tell you

My "selfish" vote? Is that because I am not obeying the marching orders of either the them or not them party where we are voting to keep someone out rather than to vote for someone who represents you? That is nothing more than marketing.

You can call it selfish, but the purpose of voting is to vote for those who best represent you. And I think that such a "wasted" vote is preferable to a counted vote for the wrong person.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 4:02 PM Steve writes:

Dear GunnyG

What can be funnier than libtrolls coming on your site... to fight among themselves?!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 5:29 PM not going to tell you writes:

caday

I hope you will reconsider this flawed logic. Think about the supreme court. Do you want McBush to pick 2 more nazi justices?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 7:30 PM CKHustler writes:

C5

do you know what 80% casualties means?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 10:05 PM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

Yes I do.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 14, 2008 11:48 PM not going to tell you writes:

caday

It would seem that the Supreme Court is a little inconvenient for your little sandbox issue with 3rd party candidates.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 12:14 AM CKHustler writes:

C5

I want you to go to this site:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein 42503.html

it will tell you all you need to know about deaths in iraq.

"between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

so what does that equal out to be?

and by 80% you mean 80% of the casualties are civilian not 80% civilian casualty rate.

this is all not to mention 40k deaths to be free. I seem to remember it took more than that for our country to be free.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 12:56 AM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

Your answer was predictable. You strained at a technicality, at which you were correct, and you missed the point. The point being that of the casualties since April of 06, 80% of them have been civilian casualties and the intent of what I was saying was clear. That is indicated by the website gave as a reference. I want to emphasize that it was indicated because we are only counting deaths, not injuries, and that the website I referenced is admittedly a low estimate.

We could go to the number of deaths during Saddamn's reign but then we have to determine how many of those deaths during Saddamn's reign were due to Saddamn and how many were due to the sanctions which were primarily driven by us.

The UN, for example, estimated the number children who died because of the sanctions to be between 400,000 and 800,000. The lowest credible estimate is 375,000 children. When we add the adults, we get over 1 million Iraqis died because of the sanctions.

What were the sanctions? They were there to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, the sanctions strengthened Saddamn's place in his country and punished the people. But it was not the sanctions alone that did this, it was the bombing of Iraq's infrastructure--their electricity, water and sewage capabilities, and their bridges that set the stage. BTW, the bombing of civilian support structures violated international law. THe sanctions were then put in place to seriously limit the amount of repair and rebuilding Iraq could do to its infrastructure.

And during that time, we continued to bomb Iraq. For example, from late Dec of 1998 to late Dec of 1999, on an average we bombed Iraq every third day.

Then we have to factor in how many of the deaths before the sanctions were due to us. Remember that we, even after Saddamn used WMDs on the Kurds, supplied him with materials to make WMDs and up until the time he invaded Kuwait, we called him a moderate and supported his reign.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 12:57 AM caday5 writes:

Ck Hustler II

There is a little similarity to Vietnam here where we supported an abusive monarchy and kept the people from voting to reunite which is what was specified by the Geneva Accords. In the end, we lost Vietnam because we lost the people--another similarity to Iraq. Maybe that was because we slaughtered many Vietnamese civilians.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 5:19 AM ManMountain writes:

Caday5

Kerry and Fonda are both guilty of "treason". Kerry for meeting with the North Vietnamese delegation during the Paris peace talks in May 1970, while he was still a reserve officer in the Navy.

Fonda for he infamous picture of sitting on a NVA anti-aircraft gun and causing more pain and anguish for US POW's while providing more propaganda for the NVA.

Records available to establish a timeline, show that Kerry entered the Navy on 02/18/1966 and with a six year obligation should have terminated with an honorable discharge in February of 1972. Apparently Kerry did not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy until 1978 (probably due to an involuntary separation from the service for the actions mentioned above.) The honorable discharge came about after Carter's first act of his presidency was to grant a general amnesty to draft dodgers and other war protesters. If this is indeed the case, the fact of his meeting with and protesting for the North Vietnamese (giving aid and comfort to the enemy) would preclude him being able to hold public office in accordance with Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 7:22 AM caday5 writes:

ManMountain

Did I miss their trial? They were both charged and convicted for treason? And how does meeting with the enemy imply giving aid and comfort to the enemy?

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 15, 2008 8:13 AM The Crawfish writes:

NGTTY

Nazi justices?????? So, according to you, anybody who actually believes in the Constitution AS WRITTEN is a Nazi? What a complete and total moron.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 16, 2008 5:15 AM ManMountain writes:

Caday5

The problem is that the average citizen if forbidden from entering into talks with enemy nations during a time of war, when we have troops in harms way and in POW camps. If you read any of the information given by the POW's about the treatment they received after her visit you might understand.
The NVA used her as a propaganda piece against her own country and she went along with it. She should have been charged.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, May, 16, 2008 6:48 AM caday5 writes:

ManMountain

Can you cite specifically where we are forbidden to enter into talks with the enemy of a police action--war was never declared.

The treatment our captured troops received was horrible. But so were some of the actions of our troops.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 17, 2008 4:12 PM Steve writes:

Dear Caddy

You're using the old liberal ploy of moral equivalency. The communists, from the very beginning, embraced terrorism as a legitimate tool of furthering the revolution. They have seldom failed to employ it. While acts of criminality did occur among American troops in Vietnam (as they occur everywhere in all wars) it was not as a result of a fixed strategy. And, it must be noted, American forces were under the constant scrutiny of a largely-hostile press, eager to report (or manufacture) anything negative... as it remains to this day. Our enemies, then and now, have little coverage as to their institutionalized outrages; even those against their own people.

And I wouldn't start throwing that "flattery" accusation around too freely, if I were you. The high opinion you hold of your own intellect fairly drips from your every post. In that, it's easy to see why you'd be so enamored of Ralph Nader.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 17, 2008 4:25 PM Steve writes:

Dear Caddy

I forgot to mention this: The reason that a good sized herd of liberals are not now in prison (and some for the last 30 years) is because of the ongoing corruption of our judicial system. Ramos and Compean are in jail. OJ is not... at least, not for brutal murder.

"Freedom of Expression", one of the most destructive concepts ever, has allowed treason and pornography to become both profitable and fashionable among the elite set, as it rarely brings any serious legal penalty. And, if you have the wherewithall, you can hire lawyers that can get you out of nearly anything. If you have the backing of highly placed interests- ditto. That's why America's most notorious traitors ever- George McGovern, Ramsey Clark and Ted Kennedy- didn't decorate the same tree limb a third of a century ago.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, May, 17, 2008 11:50 PM CKHustler writes:

caday5

well, we also then have to subtract from the civilian deaths the ones not killed by us. They were not killed by us so we must take that away. Since most of the civilians are killed by terrorists, your cause falls to the waste side.

See, I can pull semantics too. You argument is grossly misleading.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, May, 18, 2008 9:00 AM caday5 writes:

CK Hustler

So because the ones not killed by us are more than the ones killed by us, and how do we know this, then there is no validity to the argument. This is called all or nothing thinking.

But here is the problem I see. How different are we than the terrorists who deliberately kill if what we do makes civilian deaths inevitable? NIC reports of Dec 2002 warned President Bush about the sectarian violence that would occur if he invaded Iraq. Humanitarian organizations warned President Bush about the disaster that would occur if he invaded. And so far, both warnings have proved true. Between 4 to 5 million Iraqis have been displaced because of our war and up to 1.3 million have been killed. If the same percentages of American citizens had so suffered then we would have had up to 60,000,000 Americans displaced and up to 12,000,000 killed.

The above stats do not count the injured, those living in poverty because of the employment situation, and those living in poverty because of the war's effect on the infrastructure.

I believe it is called inconvenient responsibility. It is the cost that others pay for our war.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 20, 2008 2:33 AM ManMountain writes:

Cadday 5

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. You asked, "Can you cite specifically where we are forbidden to enter into talks with the enemy of a police action--war was never declared."
Try - 18 U.S.C. 953 which stated;

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

So you see, war does not even have to be declared. If the foreign government is considered to be an enemy of the USA, citizens cannot enter into talks with them without consent of the US government.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, May, 20, 2008 7:05 AM caday5 writes:

ManMountain

Thank you for the info. But I believe that the law you cited does not forbid mere correspondence or talks. Note that it is those talks that occur with

"with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, "

In addition, even when there is the intent to influence, then such action is not considered treason but

"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both"

So it is the responsibility of the gov't to establish that the intent of those talks is to influence the behavior of the foreign gov't.

Am I understanding what you quoted correctly?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 21, 2008 4:07 AM ManMountain writes:

Caday5

That would depend on what their correspondence or meetings entailed. In Kerry's case, he received a place of honor with the NVA by having his picture hung in their war museum in Ho Chi Minh city (formerly Saigon). They gave him and his anti-war activist friends great credit in helping them to achieve victory.

If you notice, all the actual protesting of a war seems to get done here in the US. Why do you think none of those protestors ever go and march and hold up anti-war signs and try to get our enemies to stop their killings and attacks. The main reason is that they are chickensh*ts. They know if they did that anywhere but here they wouldn't last five minutes. If a regular person goes and holds a meeting with enemy officials, they become nothing more than useful idiots for the enemy. This is also another reason why we do not negociate with terrorists, so that if some "well intentioned" fool gets abducted then they are on their own.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, May, 21, 2008 7:38 AM caday5 writes:

Man Mountain

There are a few other reasons why American antiwar protesters only protest or protested here (possibly). First, as Americans, we are responsible for our government's actions because we live in a democracy. We are not responsible for the actions of Iran, now, or were responsible for the actions of N. Vietnam, then.

2nd, it is sometimes less meaningful to protest the actions of some other country where your voice is not heard anyway. It is more meaningful to protest the actions of your own country where the gov't does hear you and you risk repercussions of actions. It is not that we never comment on the actions of others. Take Chomsky who is known as a critic of American policy. Though he spent most of his time criticizing American policy, he did criticize the Soviet Union. For example, in '82 he said that the harshness of the Soviet Union's response to Afghanistan there would lead those fighter to commit their own atrocities later. He also called the Soviet Union a "dungeon."

But he makes a great point when criticizing the Russian press when he said that it is meaningless, though correct, for the then Soviet Union Press to criticize American actions without criticizing the actions of their own country.

Third, in Vietnam, we were the aggressor. We weren't the only ones who committed war crimes but we were the aggressor.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 22, 2008 5:17 AM ManMountain writes:

Caday5

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond but here goes.

You use Chomsky as an example but again he didn't do his protesting of the Soviets in there country. We were in Vietnam at the request of South Vietnam (our ally) to help thwart the spread of communism. President Kennedy committed us and LBJ expanded that committment while preventing our troops from winning with rediculous political rules of engagement. The communists were the aggressors invading South Vietnam against their will. Where you came up with the tripe that we were the aggressor is pure liberal fiction.

You bought the Russian fed propaganda that Sir Walter of CBS spoon fed everyone and you ate too much of. Go back and read statements by General Giap of the NVA and a couple of the former KGB defectors who have published reports of their involvement in feeding the propaganda to our MSM.
The NVA were beaten (Vietcong were no longer a fighting force) and ready to call it quits after TET but because of Walter's pronouncement that we had been beaten and the protestor's actions here in the states, they felt they could hold out for political victory which they got.

American have always tried to help our smaller allies but our liberal socialists always side with the enemies of our allies and eventually us.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 22, 2008 7:31 AM caday5 writes:

Man Mountain I

I used Chomsky as an example because one of the complaints posted is why don't we protest the actions of other nations. I already listed some reasons why and I cited Chomsky because he did protest the Russians even if it was from here. Again, our primary responsibility is our gov't. To go to Russia, or ISrael, and protest their actions and get arrested prohibits us from taking care of our primary responsibility. Protesting Russia from here, especially when you have an audience like Chomsky, has an effect.

But your history on South Vietnam is incomplete. We first went into South Vietnam during the Eisenhower Administration at the request of the French in order to keep the remnants of their empire alive. We did so and stayed there to keep the South Vietnamese from exercising the right to vote. According to the Geneva Accords, the South Vietnamese were to vote on whether they would reunify with the North. Ho Chi Min, the leader of North Vietnam was an ally during WWII and was bitterly surprised when we took the stand we did. After his Presidency, Eisenhower opposed the Vietnam war.

The gov't we supported in South Vietnam was a totalitarian monarchy that was as repressive as the worst communist country. By the time they had "elections," we had already lost the people of South Vietnam which is why we lost the war. There is something about killing civilians that causes the general population to be repulsed. The problem I see in our Cold War strategy is using boolean logic, always choosing between two options, when the world was more complex. Martin Luther King chided our foreign policy on Vietnam because we used a blanket term to the N. Vietnam gov't when not all in the N. Vietnam gov't were communist (See http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html)

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, May, 22, 2008 7:31 AM caday5 writes:

Man Mountain II

Perhaps you have bought the gov't-pentagon propaganda that says we are always in a conflict for honorable intentions. Former Marine Major General Smedley Butler gives testimony as to how false that was before WWII. And former economic hitman John Perkins testifies that is not the case today. I can provide links if you want.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive