Pacifism and the Left

[Moonglow]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.




War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

How many years were you in the military?

 

[konradv]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.

"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

The problem is to make sure that moral outrage steers the politics, rather than the other way around. Look at the Syria situation. Obama is alternately attacked as ignoring a humanitarian catastrophe and secretly planning to invade by the same side!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.

So when the leftist Obama goes around the world with drones and blows away terrorists one by one,

and then the Right complains about it,

who are the ones confronting and not confronting evil in that scenario?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.




War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

How many years were you in the military?

She's just one more example of who Remarque was symbolizing when he put the character Kantorek in All Quiet on the Western Front.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.


"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.




War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

This assumes that the wars the U.S. has been involved in have actually been about "confronting evil." The government would like us to believe that, of course, but it's hardly true.

 

[Pho_King]

Talk about a load of nonsense. While you have pacifism elements on the left, you also have them on the right (see Robert Taft historically, or Ron Paul today). I can't really think of any prominent politicians on the left today who are pacifists (see Obama's frequent references to Niebuhr).

I'd also question the claim that "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good". That's true in the right's approach to foreign policy, but it's not even remotely true to most other policy areas. You have to believe that man is inherently good to believe unregulated markets will balance themselves.

I would agree completely. Its not that the left is filled with pacifists. Its filled with pussies.

You should ask bin Laden about that.

Lefties killed Bin Laden?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Only a rightwing nut could make the desire for peace look like a character flaw.

Clear differences in meaning are hardly, it seems, in your ken.
"desire for peace" is very different from avoiding confronting evil.

So when the leftist Obama goes around the world with drones and blows away terrorists one by one,
and then the Right complains about it,
who are the ones confronting and not confronting evil in that scenario?

Exactly. I will grant the Conservatives / Republicans used to own the issue of defense. Then came Bush (the idiot, not the one I voted for). What a mess.
Then came Obama and the strangest danm thing happened! The Left was suddenly cheering about taking out more AQ and Taliban leaders in three years, than Bush did in seven. Then came the invasion of a nuclear ally to take out OBL. Then came the drone strike of Al Qeada member Al-Awlaki and suddenly it's the Dems that are hawks and the danm GOP sounds like choir boys from the ACLU. Then Boehner cries "Why isn't Obama DOING anything in Libya!".
One day before he does.
In.
Out.
Cheap.
No lives lost.
Exit strategy!

So much for trying to label the LibDems as "pacifists".
They're not against going after our enemies.
They just do it better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Talk about a load of nonsense. While you have pacifism elements on the left, you also have them on the right (see Robert Taft historically, or Ron Paul today). I can't really think of any prominent politicians on the left today who are pacifists (see Obama's frequent references to Niebuhr).

I'd also question the claim that "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good". That's true in the right's approach to foreign policy, but it's not even remotely true to most other policy areas. You have to believe that man is inherently good to believe unregulated markets will balance themselves.

You look so nice in that outfit....pity I'm forced to grind you to dust....

1. While there are folks who endorse a myriad of positions, even Liberal Democrats who were anti-communist during the 50's....
Even so, it would be difficult for you to deny that the general position of Liberals, Democrats, were anti-anti-communist. Did you read Kangor's "Dupes"?

To this day they rail against the hero Senator McCarthy, and, without the evidence of the Venona Files, would still deny that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, et.al. were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

Care to argue that?
Didn't think so.

2.Now, as for the veracity of the OP, I note you didn't pick out specifics in the OP with which to contend....
...the reason is obvious.

a. "...the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” ..."

b. they despise any " sign of militarism,"...need I provide a copy of the Colonel Holmes letter?

c. how about "oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence."
Need news articles about children being suspended for said drawings...?

d. How about the Chris Hayes incident..."referring to military dead as heroes."



3. Now, since all the specifics are provable....if I were you, I'd look to spin the analysis, such as

a. "Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil"

or

b. the Left's discomfort with "traditional Judeo-Christian values..."

or

c. "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good,..."

I think 'c.' is your best shot.
Here, this might help:


In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

You could try to say that the Left merely sees mankind as perfectible....

Just tryin' to help...

I'll focus on the Chris Hayes incident, since someone else already pointed out that the backlash against violent in cartoons/media generally came from the right.

What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made? He said using the term "hero" can often times bleed from crediting people for their service to claiming that war is a necessity. And guess what? That's absolutely true. Look at countless numbers of threads here, and you'll see conservatives claiming liberals "hate the troops" because they don't see a particular military intervention as worthwhile.

I'd go one step further on the "hero" question though. The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). On the flip side, not everyone who has ever put on the uniform is a saint. There are tons of people who served in the military while also having drug problems, or beating their spouse, or any number of other terrible things. Are they great human beings in spite of that because of their chosen line of work? It's a noble sacrifice to serve, especially in a period where the nation is in a conflict and there is no draft, but making that choice doesn't absolve people of responsibility for the other actions they commit.

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You look so nice in that outfit....pity I'm forced to grind you to dust....

1. While there are folks who endorse a myriad of positions, even Liberal Democrats who were anti-communist during the 50's....
Even so, it would be difficult for you to deny that the general position of Liberals, Democrats, were anti-anti-communist. Did you read Kangor's "Dupes"?

To this day they rail against the hero Senator McCarthy, and, without the evidence of the Venona Files, would still deny that Hiss, the Rosenbergs, et.al. were paid agents of the Soviet Union.

Care to argue that?
Didn't think so.

2.Now, as for the veracity of the OP, I note you didn't pick out specifics in the OP with which to contend....
...the reason is obvious.

a. "...the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” ..."

b. they despise any " sign of militarism,"...need I provide a copy of the Colonel Holmes letter?

c. how about "oppose children viewing cartoons, like Bugs Bunny, that depict a stylized violence, not to mention playing with toy guns, war scenarios, or even drawing stick figures portraying violence."
Need news articles about children being suspended for said drawings...?

d. How about the Chris Hayes incident..."referring to military dead as heroes."



3. Now, since all the specifics are provable....if I were you, I'd look to spin the analysis, such as

a. "Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil"

or

b. the Left's discomfort with "traditional Judeo-Christian values..."

or

c. "The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good,..."

I think 'c.' is your best shot.
Here, this might help:


In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

You could try to say that the Left merely sees mankind as perfectible....

Just tryin' to help...

I'll focus on the Chris Hayes incident, since someone else already pointed out that the backlash against violent in cartoons/media generally came from the right.

What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made? He said using the term "hero" can often times bleed from crediting people for their service to claiming that war is a necessity. And guess what? That's absolutely true. Look at countless numbers of threads here, and you'll see conservatives claiming liberals "hate the troops" because they don't see a particular military intervention as worthwhile.

I'd go one step further on the "hero" question though. The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). On the flip side, not everyone who has ever put on the uniform is a saint. There are tons of people who served in the military while also having drug problems, or beating their spouse, or any number of other terrible things. Are they great human beings in spite of that because of their chosen line of work? It's a noble sacrifice to serve, especially in a period where the nation is in a conflict and there is no draft, but making that choice doesn't absolve people of responsibility for the other actions they commit.

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll focus on the Chris Hayes incident, since someone else already pointed out that the backlash against violent in cartoons/media generally came from the right.

What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made? He said using the term "hero" can often times bleed from crediting people for their service to claiming that war is a necessity. And guess what? That's absolutely true. Look at countless numbers of threads here, and you'll see conservatives claiming liberals "hate the troops" because they don't see a particular military intervention as worthwhile.

I'd go one step further on the "hero" question though. The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). On the flip side, not everyone who has ever put on the uniform is a saint. There are tons of people who served in the military while also having drug problems, or beating their spouse, or any number of other terrible things. Are they great human beings in spite of that because of their chosen line of work? It's a noble sacrifice to serve, especially in a period where the nation is in a conflict and there is no draft, but making that choice doesn't absolve people of responsibility for the other actions they commit.

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

Why would I be the best judge, from your view, since you profess to believe, as do so many rightwingers,

that it is morally obligatory to consider all of our veterans and active duty military as heroes?

Suddenly, as you find out I'M a veteran,

the obligatory 'hero' label acquires an instant flexibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The idea that everyone who has served in the military is a "hero" is complete rubbish. If everyone who serves is a "hero", we've turned the word into a meaningless catchphrase that degrades the service of those who have performed true acts of heroism (rescuing a wounded comrade from enemy fire, falling on a grenade to save the rest of the unit). "

1. While there is no argument here about 'everyone...." what you are revealing is that Hayes is admitting that he is on the same page as the Left which is exactly what the OP suggests....

a. I'm going to accept the veracity of the stories about soldiers being spit upon after the Vietnam War, although I wasn't around at the time...

b. ...and this: "... for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam....No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose,..."
Bill Clinton's Draft Letter | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

That was the language used by Bill Clinton about the military, and, by extension, the members of same.
Yours is too nuanced a position...

I suggest that in the argument at hand, there are only two choices, the above, or the idea that our volunteers are heroes. They are the extremes, but they are the positions that exist in this debate.

Based on that idea, Chris' words resonate with the former...and open a wound.
Many folks felt that...MSNBC felt the heat, as did Chris Hayes, himself. Thus, his apology.


"What exactly was so outrageous about the comment Hayes made?"
He told the truth, as it is seen form a Leftist perspective.
This is why you don't see it as outrageous.

But those on the Left, wiser than you, do.

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

The fact that people such as myself, and President Obama, were smart enough to oppose the Iraq war,

and you weren't, apparently makes us 'pacifists' in some perjorative manner.

We were right; you were wrong. Your inability to come up with any response better than to quote some other guy's idiocy about 'pacifism' says volumes about your lack of intellect, not to mention his.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

Why would I be the best judge, from your view, since you profess to believe, as do so many rightwingers,

that it is morally obligatory to consider all of our veterans and active duty military as heroes?

Suddenly, as you find out I'M a veteran,

the obligatory 'hero' label acquires an instant flexibility.

You are the best judge of whether or not YOU are a hero.

Why does everything have to be explained to you several time....

...never mind...I've seen your posts.

For the third time in this thread....if the distinction is either 'despise the military" ( a la Bill Clinton) or, all our members of the volunteer military are to be considered as heroes...

....I'm going with choice 'b.'

Based on the reaction to Chris Hayes' statement, many folks agree.

On the other hand, you Leftists failing to understand the dispute....totally understandable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm a veteran, and no conservative on this board would ever call me a hero. Nor should they.

Chris Hayes was right. There is a complex dilemma about the glorification of war being an accomplice to the perpetuation of war.

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

The fact that people such as myself, and President Obama, were smart enough to oppose the Iraq war,

and you weren't, apparently makes us 'pacifists' in some perjorative manner.

We were right; you were wrong. Your inability to come up with any response better than to quote some other guy's idiocy about 'pacifism' says volumes about your lack of intellect, not to mention his.

I can't begin to tell you how chagrined I am....

...I believe I'll go back to my ironing now.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

As far as being a hero...well, you might be the best judge.

"...an accomplice to the perpetuation of war."
Couldn't be a more clear validation of the OP.

The fact that people such as myself, and President Obama, were smart enough to oppose the Iraq war,

and you weren't, apparently makes us 'pacifists' in some perjorative manner.

We were right; you were wrong. Your inability to come up with any response better than to quote some other guy's idiocy about 'pacifism' says volumes about your lack of intellect, not to mention his.

I can't begin to tell you how chagrined I am....

...I believe I'll go back to my ironing now.....

If that wasn't sarcasm I'd be obligated to commend you for finally having gotten a clue.

 

[occupied]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

Good post.

And again, the OP is flawed in that it assumes LibDems are pacifists.
Then came Obama, the baddest mo'fo' in town and an azz-kicker.
Then the "pacifist" Left was suddenly cheering about taking out more AQ and Taliban leaders in three years, than Bush did in seven.
Then came the invasion of a nuclear ally to take out OBL.
Then came the drone strike of Al Qeada member Al-Awlaki and suddenly it's the Dems that are hawks and the danm GOP sounds like a bunch of ACLU members.
Then Boehner cries "Why isn't Obama DOING anything in Libya!".
One day before Obama does.
In.
Out.
Cheap.
No lives lost.
Exit strategy!

So much for trying to label the LibDems as "pacifists".
They're obviously no longer against going after our enemies.
They're just a helluva lot better at it than the Right.
I bet that really pisses them off!

 

[bobgnote]

The left is not uniformly anti-war but they set a pretty high bar for when it is necessary. Even the most hippy dippy liberal knows in their heart that occasionally people are so bad and so untouchable by justice that they deserve killing.

The Democrats and Republicans don't let any issues leak out, of their conspiratorial fix. Their consensus is for a Zionist Occupation Government, in the US, which deliberately violates the separation clause, standing army clause, enumerated powers clause re 'common defense,' USCA 4, 5, 14, RICO, and the Sedition Act.

The left and right are all spouting junk facts, to support cooked agendas. Nobody notices how we need to either admit to global warming or not, but if we do not legalize pot, grow that and switchgrass, and if we do not re-green desertified and polluted areas, we will die.

You cannot get many socialists or communists to admit we need to cut the carbon footprint of both the drug war and petroleum, since they are affected by Catholicism and Stalinism. Catholics are cops and oil company executives; Russia sells oil. GIGO!

 

[regent]

Spent my youth in the infantry on New Guinea, Luzon including Bataan. Most of us were not heroes, but our company had a few, and I was proud to just be among them. I can still name them.
Speaking of how cowardly the liberals are I can remember most of us were Democrats and one day it was rumored that there was a Republican in K company so a few of us wandered over to see what a Republican looked like. We didn't see any Republicans only GI's like us.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Spent my youth in the infantry on New Guinea, Luzon including Bataan. Most of us were not heroes, but our company had a few, and I was proud to just be among them. I can still name them.
Speaking of how cowardly the liberals are I can remember most of us were Democrats and one day it was rumored that there was a Republican in K company so a few of us wandered over to see what a Republican looked like. We didn't see any Republicans only GI's like us.

Thank you for your courageous service to our country.