The 'Logic' of Liberal Morality

[syzygy]

i've always wondered how liberals piece together their raison d'etre, specifically the dynamics, the moral calculations,
the factors they consider and don't consider, what gets glued together, and what gets left on the floor.

the case of cindy sheehan can help. yes, she's lost her son. but that in itself - sadly - is not unique. there is a backstory.
judging from her statements and antics, she was a ragng ideologue who did not suppot her son's decision to join the
military, much less go off and fight a war. she is pushing her vision of who he was while not paying any respect to
his beliefs (judged by his actions) and his own convictions, in effect the person he was.

in short, the casey sheehan his mother is posterizing for her partisan cause is not faithful to the actual person. on top
of that, she has labeled the people who murdered her son as 'freedom fighters', and by extension, following her train
of thought, she deems the united states (along with isreal) as the chief causes of terrorism.

therefore, a question is begged to be asked: does she consider the soldiers who fought with her son to be murderers ?
. . . and are we to blame for 9/11 ? ofcourse the real possibilty exists that casey himself may have committed an act
of 'murder' too, and the fact is that as volunteer member of the armed forces he was a willing agent that carried out
gov't policies which she considers cause and spread terrorism all over the world. by her own reasoning, her own son
is indicted.

i'm familair with popular answers to these questions, having stuck my finger in the smelly muck before, but i'm curious
how a hopefully non-partisan, independent observer can reconcile the moral absurdities in these claims.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: syzygyhaving stuck my finger in the smelly muck before

Might I suggest pulling your finger our along with your head.

No one blames to soldiers for doing Bush's dirty work. Bush has the blood on his hands, not our troops.

 

[sandorski]

repost

 

[Medicine Bear]

There is no explaining the actions of extreme ideologues on either side. This woman is clearly a fruitcake, but is she more of one that someone like Pat Robertson? I don't think so.

The thing that worries me about people like Sheehan and Robertson is that they grab headlines and make both sides look crazy when in fact they represent a small portion of their respective political parties, thus causing the "normal" voter to become even more disgusted with the whole political process and shy away from voting. If the great middle does not wake up soon this country will continue to become more and more divided by the extremes and that my friends will rip us apart.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: sandorski
repost

Wow - that really is bizarre. Between syzygy and his fellow conservative, GeneralGrievous/LordTyranus/Zendari, they have posted at least 8 Cindy Sheehan threads. No doubt she enjoys that she's getting conservatives into such a lather.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: syzygyhaving stuck my finger in the smelly muck before

Might I suggest pulling your finger our along with your head.

No one blames to soldiers for doing Bush's dirty work. Bush has the blood on his hands, not our troops.

not true. what if the soldiers willingly join, like casey sheehan did, to fight for principles that no liberal
seems to understand ? there are soldiers - shocking as this may read - who do care for the destruction
of rogue regimes who sponsor terrorists of the same kind that commited the 9/11 atrocities.

cindy sheehan has no room, no conception, no sense whatsoever that there are people willing to fight
on many fronts - not just military - with their country against the terrorists, rather than labeling the
murderers of american soldiers, including her son, as freedom fighters.

the murderers of her son were not freedom fighters. shouldn't that come out of cindy's mouth ? or any
lib's mouth ?

say it, patriot . . ..

 

[umbrella39]

And what have you ever fought for ePatroit? Hmmm? Did you ever serve? Hmmm?

Your agruments are as stupid as the "How can you support the troops and not the war".

Typical neocon obfuscation and false patriotism. Run along now.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: syzygyhaving stuck my finger in the smelly muck before

Might I suggest pulling your finger our along with your head.

No one blames to soldiers for doing Bush's dirty work. Bush has the blood on his hands, not our troops.

not true. what if the soldiers willingly join, like casey sheehan did, to fight for principles that no liberal
seems to understand ? there are soldiers - shocking as this may read - who do care for the destruction
of rogue regimes who sponsor terrorists of the same kind that commited the 9/11 atrocities.

cindy sheehan has no room, no conception, no sense whatsoever that there are people willing to fight
on many fronts - not just military - with their country against the terrorists, rather than labeling the
murderers of american soldiers, including her son, as freedom fighters.

the murderers of her son were not freedom fighters. shouldn't that come out of cindy's mouth ? or any
lib's mouth ?

say it, patriot . . ..

The woman is a fruit and is clearly using her son's death to push her own agenda. While that disgusts me to the very core I do believe she has the right to say those things. I did 8 years in the USMC just so she could say those sorts of things and if you are trying to shut her up because you disagree with what she is saying you disgust me even more than she does.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: syzygyhaving stuck my finger in the smelly muck before

Might I suggest pulling your finger our along with your head.

No one blames to soldiers for doing Bush's dirty work. Bush has the blood on his hands, not our troops.

not true. what if the soldiers willingly join, like casey sheehan did, to fight for principles that no liberal
seems to understand ? there are soldiers - shocking as this may read - who do care for the destruction
of rogue regimes who sponsor terrorists of the same kind that commited the 9/11 atrocities.

cindy sheehan has no room, no conception, no sense whatsoever that there are people willing to fight
on many fronts - not just military - with their country against the terrorists, rather than labeling the
murderers of american soldiers, including her son, as freedom fighters.

the murderers of her son were not freedom fighters. shouldn't that come out of cindy's mouth ? or any
lib's mouth ?

say it, patriot . . ..

What did Iraq have to do with Al-Qaeda and 9/11?

Got WMD's? Iraq didn't!

Trying to shift the goal post and point the figers at anybody buy Bush.

She may be a nutcase, but she didn't start a lie of a war. She did, however, lose her son to it.

:music: Shifting...shifting...shifting....keep the goals a shifting...:music:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: sandorski
repost

Wow - that really is bizarre. Between syzygy and his fellow conservative, GeneralGrievous/LordTyranus/Zendari, they have posted at least 8 Cindy Sheehan threads. No doubt she enjoys that she's getting conservatives into such a lather.

It really is quite telling how they all line up to lash out at one woman. They should learn how to pick their fights better, the battle is lost right around the time they click the little "new topic" button.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: syzygyhaving stuck my finger in the smelly muck before

Might I suggest pulling your finger our along with your head.

No one blames to soldiers for doing Bush's dirty work. Bush has the blood on his hands, not our troops.

not true. what if the soldiers willingly join, like casey sheehan did, to fight for principles that no liberal
seems to understand ? there are soldiers - shocking as this may read - who do care for the destruction
of rogue regimes who sponsor terrorists of the same kind that commited the 9/11 atrocities.

cindy sheehan has no room, no conception, no sense whatsoever that there are people willing to fight
on many fronts - not just military - with their country against the terrorists, rather than labeling the
murderers of american soldiers, including her son, as freedom fighters.

the murderers of her son were not freedom fighters. shouldn't that come out of cindy's mouth ? or any
lib's mouth ?

say it, patriot . . ..

The woman is a fruit and is clearly using her son's death to push her own agenda. While that disgusts me to the very core I do believe she has the right to say those things. I did 8 years in the USMC just so she could say those sorts of things and if you are trying to shut her up because you disagree with what she is saying you disgust me even more than she does.

never denied - nor would ever deny - her right to say what she likes. as you say, she's a 'fruit', and i'm
using her as example of a loud fruit thats common and somewhat influential in certain quarters.

just pointing out the inconsistencies and aburdities in her position opens one up to facile assaults from
libs that we're "attacking a grieving mom'. you expect such retorts from liberals. they're defensive and
desperate. not surprising in the least. some conservatives resort to this type of attack - on other issues -
as well.

 

[CaptnKirk]

It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

 

[Medicine Bear]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

And it is so "American Neocon" to slaughter 100,000+ people to selfishly push their agenda.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

And it is so "American Neocon" to slaughter 100,000+ people to selfishly push their agenda.

hey, lib, count your zeros. you left out a few. no need for the plus sign.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

When the death of another person, namely your son is part of the agenda, I see nothing wrong with it. If her agenda was anything other than exposing Bush and the lies the American public were sold, I would agree with you. When she start pimping for gun control or animal rights and uses her sons death, she has taken it too far.

 

[Engineer]

Somebody send this troll back to the ground, the dirt misses him!

, since the pretzel icon is broken.



/thread

 

[umbrella39]

You never did answer OP, have you ever served your country? I would put much more stock in your point of view if you ever have. The only people on this board I respect when arguing for war are those who have, themselves, actually put their money where their mouths are. Or are you one of the few, the proud, the eMarines?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

And it is so "American Neocon" to slaughter 100,000+ people to selfishly push their agenda.

hey, lib, count your zeros. you left out a few. no need for the plus sign.

Are you hoping that you could add a few zeroes to the death toll?

I know one thing for sure, you're occupying one of those "missing" zeroes.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

If you and others truly felt that way, you'd have saved 1900ish American lives and $200billion. Funny how you start preaching this when 1 distraught Mother embarrasses the one who used the death of 3000 to start the Iraq War based upon Lies. Your Indignation isn't what's wrong, it's grossly misplaced.

 

[yllus]

syzygy, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your contributions as one of the few who can write out a lengthly and intelligent post on their own, instead of paraphrasing a few sentences from a news article. I find it amusing that those who can often only manage "BUSH LIEZ" are calling you a troll.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: yllus
syzygy, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your contributions as one of the few who can write out a lengthly and intelligent post on their own, instead of paraphrasing a few sentences from a news article. I find it amusing that those who can often only manage "BUSH LIEZ" are calling you a troll.

I don't really consider this thread a troll, though I consider its title unnecessarily, er, trollish.

What do you make of his posting two Sheehan threads, expressing substantially overlapping sentiments, within just a few minutes of one another?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: yllus
syzygy, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your contributions as one of the few who can write out a lengthly and intelligent post on their own, instead of paraphrasing a few sentences from a news article. I find it amusing that those who can often only manage "BUSH LIEZ" are calling you a troll.

I don't really consider this thread a troll, though I consider its title unnecessarily, er, trollish.

What do you make of his posting two Sheehan threads, expressing substantially overlapping sentiments, within just a few minutes of one another?

<Insert troll icon here>

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: yllus
syzygy, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your contributions as one of the few who can write out a lengthly and intelligent post on their own, instead of paraphrasing a few sentences from a news article. I find it amusing that those who can often only manage "BUSH LIEZ" are calling you a troll.

I don't really consider this thread a troll, though I consider its title unnecessarily, er, trollish.

What do you make of his posting two Sheehan threads, expressing substantially overlapping sentiments, within just a few minutes of one another?

syzygy tends to pontificate publicly a fair bit; despite the painting of a wide swath of people in one stroke in both (which sort of falls into the norm here) I think that he has a fairly valid point in making two threads instead of one.

One was about the idolizing of Cindy as the foremost character in the liberal anti-war movement (which I disagree with, the press and the right make far more of a deal out of her than anyone else); one was about what it means to identify with Cindy's statements. It is pretty strange for her to be indicting those who killed her son as freedom fighters - what exactly does that make him?

I realize that military personnel aren't exactly at liberty to pick and choose the orders they receive, but simultaneously you can't completely absolve them of repressing 'freedom'. It would be interesting to hear if she and those few who support her ever finish that thought and let us know where they stand.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
It's so 'American Macho' to attack a woman who lost thier son, instead of joining the service and volunteering to go into the Zone and engage in combat with the enemy.

Be proud of yourselves, cowards.

It is so "American Liberal" to use the death of another person to selfishly push your agenda.

The Bush administration certainly isn't using 9/11 to push their agenda.