Where are the Libs ?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dilloduck, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I've noticed that we don't have our usual onslaught of liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel. Do they think this is not our war or are they having a hard time confessing where they stand? Their silence is deafening.
     
  2. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Define liberal.

    Am I a liberal?
     
  3. Redhots
    Offline

    Redhots Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    I'm confused too.

    Give an example of "liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel".
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    heck---I'll even settle for a liberal comment on the mideast situation. whatcha think?
     
  5. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Define liberal.

    Who here is a liberal?

    Am I a liberal?
     
  6. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    Hey, I'm worse than a liberal but since asked of where I stand:

    I think Isreal is conducting badly, both military, politically and morally. Thay are however putting the light on a very serious problem: Lebanon can't handle hezbollah alone. The offensive action Israel has taken must thus be considered as being justified.

    Also it is clear that UN can't function as intended anymore. UN is a product of its members and if those members can't agree - UN can't act.

    Well, something like that.
     
  7. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572

    Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.

    The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    More importantly I think Bush is doing the right thing by standing firm for a sustainable peace as opposed to a cease fire ( which in the middle east means to give the Arabs time to lick thier wounds and rearm ). He again is supporting engaging terrorism militarily when they attack and as they prepare to build up to nuclear weapons. At the same time he and Condi are holding rcok solid in negotiations to expose the motives and financiers of terrorism and leaving them very little wiggle room. The Hizbullys can declare victory all they want but when this is over and people see the rubble that was Lebanon they will remember who was hiding in thier schools, homes and hospitals.
     
  9. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    I don't know. That seemed a bit stereotype and I don't recognize liberals running around like you describe it. The media however is biased. I usually buy two newspapers to put together a more balanced view.

    What would in your mind be the perfect move right now? If it was up to you?
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    Tim Touts Mid-Terms as Time for Change
    Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 1, 2006 - 07:55.
    Tim Russert used his Today show appearance this morning to paint a bleak tour d'horizon of Bush foreign policy, expressing the fond-wish-in-guise-of-a-question that the American people might come to their senses and throw the bums out at the mid-terms.

    Interviewed by co-host Campbell Brown, Russert first asked: "What's the end game? The concern among Republicans I've talked to is how are the American people viewing this? Is this blind allegiance to Israel or is this standing by the only ally we have in the region? They don't know how much longer there will be patience with the American people."

    Russert later made the electoral connection, after casting matters in their darkest light. Rather than speaking of nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the current opportunity to defang Hezbollah, Russert portrayed things this way:

    "In Palestine it was Hamas who won the election. In Iraq, we have a Shi'ite regime in Iraq right now that refuses to say the Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. This is a regime that is in power because of us toppling Saddam Hussein. What will we get in Lebanon? Will the new government be more extreme than the old government?"

    He then put in his not-so-subtle boost for the blues at the ballot box: "And what does that mean to the American people when they look at the world? Does that mean they say, 'this is George Bush taking on the war on terror', or do they say 'this is a chaotic world we need to change something, we need to send a message'? The mid-term elections could really be quite interesting, based on this."

    We get it, Tim. Send a message - Vote Democrat!
    http://newsbusters.org/node/6681


    Globe: Restrain Israel, Cease-Fire at Any Price
    Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 1, 2006 - 07:00.
    When the Allies faced fascist foes in WWII, they called for unconditional surrender. Confronted today by the new face of facism, the Boston Globe calls for 'unconditional, immediate cease-fire.'

    By its editorial of this morning, the Globe would reward Hezbollah for its barbarous use of human shields. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the terror group 'has placed its rocket-launchers . . . unconscionably close to settled areas.' But since the result are the very civilian casualties that Hezbollah was looking to provoke, the Globe criticizes the Bush administration for its 'failure to restrain Israel.'

    Oh, to be sure, the Globe piously calls for 'a strong stabilization force of UN troops who could assist the Lebanese government in neutralizing Hezbollah and in ensuring that it does not once again pose a threat to Israel.'

    The IDF - the world's premier terror-neutralizers - has been unable to put Hezbollah back in its box yet. How can the Globe possibly imagine that the forces of Kofi Annan - they of the impotent observers who watched Hezbollah move 13,000 rockets into the area - would possibly succeed?

    No matter. Peace at any price. Somewhere, even Neville Chamberlain is grimacing.
     

Share This Page