There's a commandment against lying.
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Ok, in the name of Liberalism, God was kicked out of the schools.
No, He wasn't. He's still there. However, the government does not make one religion the 'official' religion by teaching it in public schools; instead it guarantees YOU the freedom to.
Get off your butt and teach your kids religion yourself, with your church, and stop demanding that our nation treat believers in other religions as second-class.
Kids are taught now that they are nothing but animals
No, they're not. They're taught that they're humans, who are in the animal kingdom - and distinct in some ways from other animals, not in others.
I suppose you would like to claim that humans don't need air, food and water like other animals, that they don't defecate, like other animals, right?
On the other hand, you don't see schools teaching the history of lizard civilizations as you do human. You're making up lies.
and that they should just act and do whatever feels good because God didn't make us, we evolved from a rock a million.. no 2 million.. no wait 5 million.... that's too hard to believe too ok 4.5 Billion years ago.
No, they're not. You show me the school that teaches kids to 'do whatever feels good'; if they want to get a gun and shoot people, go ahead and do it (oh, wait, that's your side - telling them go right ahead, but do it in the military killing some of those foreigners whose lives you don't value). Science in schools doesn't address religion; it teaches the science of evolution, which some see as religious as some don't.
Liberalism is killing our society from the ground up.
Big accusation, little, well no, proof. It's a big lie, the opposite in fact of the truth where liberalism is helping the human race from the likes of you.
It's destroying families as in the name of Liberalism more and more people are being born outside of a real family.
You're awfully vague here. Are you saying that divorce and pregnancy out of wedlock only exists among 'liberals', not among your group? Or are you saying that since your group has a creed that those arne't good things, you get credit as if your group 100% followed the creed? Are you lying about liberals that they advocate divorce and such? Are you in favor of stoning divorcees, or are you 'liberal' on the issue? Are you in favor of stoning adulterers to death as the bible says, or are you liberal on the issue? Are you in favor of the penalty for a rapist being to pay 50 silver to the woman's family and then marrying the rape victim, her having no say, as the bible says or do you have some liberal doctrine not in the bible you prefer?
Slowly but surely our society is drifting from the founding fathers who made our country and into a more crime filled, unsafe and unfriendly world.
The poverty that your political side increases has the effect of increasing crime and unfreindliness. Now you say liberals are in favor of robbery and against nice? More lies.
Is it any wonder that kids are acting out in violent ways when there is nothing to give them moral guidance?
So, all children of liberals are acting out violently, and all children of your group are not.
No? Why is that? You fail to realize liberals have 'moral guidance' for their children, too.
In fact, they have more, I'd say.
In the name of Liberalism we should have let Saddam go on killing his people and torturing them
Are you saying President Reagan, whose administration coddled Saddam doing those things because or our selfish desire for him to harm our enemy Iran no matter how he hurt his own people, was a liberal? Are you saying the Republican presidents who have caused so many right-wing regimes around the world to torture and kill in the name of 'security' were liberal?
Sorry, you are lying - liberals were the ones opposing that and calling for human rights.
Liberals aren't *for* Saddam. They're against his crimes and for looking at the available options, weighing the pros and cons - giving some concern to the issues such as the United States (officially) launching an aggressive war for the first time, something not long ago our presidents told the world thr US would never do; establishing the precedent of pre-emptive war for every nation to use in the future; and the relative costs of options for removing Saddam. I'm not going to say that liberals picked the best policy all the time, that they didn't sometimes use too much or too little force, that they may not have been aggressive enough against Saddam, but I will say you are telling a lie to say that liberals are the side who likes Saddam's behavior, who aided him in it.
while evidence was mounting that a greater attack than 9/11 could happen on our own soil.
What evidence? was there ever a credible, imminent threat? It was an *abuse* of the clause in the UN charter for self-defense.
He had invaded a neighbor (pre-emptivly)
WITH OUR SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT - that neighbor was Iran, and that was the longest major war of the 20th century, with a million casualties. Blood on your side's hands.
You meant Kuwait - a war that neither side was in favor of, but it was the *Republicans* who lied the American people into going to war, as the non-democratic regime of Kuwait hired President Bush's (41) former chief of staff's ad firm to create a PR campaign to get congress and the public to go to war, and the next thing you know, you had a woman lying to Congress and the American people about Iraqis taking babies out of incubators - though later found she wasn't there, and was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador.
and a War ensued that was ended by a UN resolution with a bunch of stipulations. Saddam broke the stipulations during the Clinton years
The REPUBLICANS saw President Bush call on the Iraqi civilians to rise up and overthrow Saddam, and after 14 of 18 provinces were in their control, the US granted Saddam's request to use military helicoptor gunships, and he slaughtered the very civilians who had done what the US asked, as it was reported that the US had decided the 'stability' a weakened Saddam wasn't so bad after all.
More blood on your group's hands.
but all Clinton did was launch cruise missles here and there.
He may have done too little at times, but killing too few wasn't the worst crime as your group showed. He did military missions that had great benefit to innocent people, largely over the objections of your group who was the one who would 'happily leave dictators in charge harming people', and oh by the way, his war in Bosnia had zero US troops killed.
Bush took over and 9/11 happened
9 months into his presidency, after he CANCELLED the major efforts Clinton had started to go after Al Queda, because the Bush people didn't want to have the same policy as Clinton because of petty partisanship, such that terrorism wasn't even on the top 10 list of priorities for the FBI under Bush, and the anti-terrorism leader was demoted and his plans were put off for 9 months to be looked at.
after the terrorists had been planning the attack for years. Saddam wasn't disclosing his WMD program (an acronym liberals like to mock as much as they can too)
Liberals don't mock the acronym WMD; they criticize the administration's dishonety and incompetence in their handling of the issue.
and Bush, along with a large number Democrats and Republicans agreed to end Saddam's rule.
A lie. There was a belief held by most that Saddam was doing things with WMD he wasn't allowed to under the UN resolutions, and the way the law-abiding wanted to address it was through the UN weapons inspectors, led by Hans Blix, who were not in Iraq. Bush said he wanted the resolution as leverage to get Saddam to cooperate with inspectors, and he promised it was NOT a resolution for war, that he hoped to avoid war, and would only go to war as a last resort if Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors.
He could have looked good if he'd kept his word, when the policy worked and the inspectors were in Iraq, a few months from finishing the inspections and installing permanent monitors.
But Bush then broke his word, and ordered the inspectors out and invaded.
Now, Liberalism claims that the WMD threat was overblown and Saddam should still be in power today.
Sane people claim the WMD threat was overblown, in hindsight - the issue as I see it for liberals is laid out above. The issue isn't liberals saying Saddam should still be in power, it's whether this way of removing him was better than leaving him in power. I think a case could be made against liberals on the removeal of Saddam, IF the right hadn't screwed it up so badly:
- Incompetent political leaders ideologically forcing too few troops
- Incompetent political leaders ignoring the State Department's thorough planning for post-war Iraq, and instead abandoning the pledge for a quick turnover to Iraqis, and putting in Bremer who worked with only a few 'insiders' outside the normal systems and others such as the state department, to do things like disband the Iraqi army, and put Chalabi in charge of 'De-Baathification' where he got to target all his political opponents.
- Trying to turn Iraq into a right-wing economic experiment, putting dozens of kids fresh out of college in charge of top agencies in Iraq whose only trait in common was having applied to the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, which had disastrous effects on rebuilding Iraq
- Refusal to put in place security for Iraq after the invasion, allowing looting so big that the estimated damage was the same as Iraq's total income the year before
- Instituting brutal policies, massive arrests of innocent people, the creation of secret prisons, extraordinary rendition, the approval of torture and excessive harm on prisoners
- And much more. More blood on your group's hands.
Nevermind the better world without Saddam, any kind of moral duty to help your neighbor be damned
Where was the need to remove Saddam during the 10 years of Reagan/Bush 41 before he invaded Kuwait, when they were allying with him, arming him, helping him kill?
Where are you on all the times your group has caused massive human harm, from removing or assassinating elected leaders, to creating death squads and terrorist armies?
it's Liberalism's tenet that we can't interfere in any injustice, no matter how bad, unless they directly threaten us.
It's liberalism's tenet to actually have some respect for sovereignity to prevent excuses from being too easily made for imperialist, aggressive wars.
You are lying when you say liberals won't get involved to stop human suffering - in fact you pretty much have that backwards.
You ignore the 'humanitarian' interventions such as Bosnia and Somalia, while your group largely opposed the efforts, with candidate George Bush 43 himself saying how all use of the miitary for such actions should always have clear timetables for withdrawal, how he was opposed to "nation-building", how he was in favor of a "humble" foreign policy - more lies.
Your group is not supportive of many legitimately humanitarian interventions, and indeed you have weakened the military to where it can't get involved.
In the name of Liberalism, we murder unborn babies. Believe me, I don't want more liberals in this world
You claim ANY morality after uttering that disgusting, hateful line?
but some things are just to horrific that no end justifies the crime involved.
So, you are saying here the issue with abortion is an ends and meand argument, the 'good' end of the abortion doesn't justify the bad 'means' it includes.
I don't think you mean to say that, but that you are not yet able to write coherently on it.
The ability to go into an abortion clinic to murder your child was recently called "health care" by someone on this forum. I can't imagine how selfish or just flat out evil one must be to have no moral objections to the destruction of unborn babies.
A discussion of abortion is beyond the scope of this thread, but your assuming a lot of things that are in dispute is noted.
Bush stands for none of these things and that's why I and millions of other Americans still support him.
What a huge lie. You apparently confuse, among other things, what Bush SAYS and what he DOES.
I noted many examples above, there are many more.
Even on abortion, what has Bush DONE on the issue other than take the politically expedient position and do nothing, knowing it's mostly out of his hands, and not doing what he could?
Not all of his policies, but when it comes to some of the major issues, he's dead on right.
So far, you have made a case only for Bush taking a position on paper you like on abortion and doing basically nothing, and bungling on an incredible scale the removal of Saddam.
The negatives are worth books to list. Not much of a defense.
I hope this fulfills your wet dream of "sit back and watch". I know i'm basically a juicy steak in a lions den posting this but so be it.
You're more like a sheep in an evil sheepherder's shrinking herd, where the sheep who pay a little attention have run away.
Facebook
Twitter