Pacifism and the Left

[Unkotare]

No, it wouldn't be "ok" with me, anymore than not renting to a veteran is "ok" with me. However, she should have the right to refuse for any reason, including the reasons you listed.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

You don't say?

As a matter of fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now, focus like a laser: there is no discussion here as to the rectitude of her decision...

....merely that it serves as evidence of the OP.

I didn't say that there was, I was merely making an observation.

In that case, let me make a personal observation: I would have no problem with the property owner making that decision for any reason whatsoever. Including the ones our other friend, Unkotare, mentioned.

So you're proudly not pacifist, but proudly racist.

Fascinating.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I didn't say that there was, I was merely making an observation.

In that case, let me make a personal observation: I would have no problem with the property owner making that decision for any reason whatsoever. Including the ones our other friend, Unkotare, mentioned.

So you're proudly not pacifist, but proudly racist.

Fascinating.

So...in addition to small shiny objects, I also fascinate you, as well?

I'm flattered.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Having run through many airports - military flew standby - and having numerous friends and neighbors serving during Nam, I never heard of the spitting tale till many years later. Everyone was friendly and helpful as we drug our duffle bags from airline to airline looking for a way home or a way back. One ex-soldier turned student of history, was unable to find anyone who experienced spitting. Did it happen maybe but nuts are everywhere - consider only PC's morbid preoccupation with her bogeyman.

As far as love for soldiers, that was a issue in many places. Parents do not appreciate lonely men from out of town milling about. Pretty simple really. And the states were worse than some overseas locals.

PC leads a sad existence, I wish her ten kids all rebellious, that'll cure her.

Do you think President Obama knows that today is June 6th?

Do you think President Obama knows the significance of June 6th in American history?

Did President Obama acknowledge June 6th?


Oops...my bad....I forgot he was a Liberal.
Never mind.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"On Tuesday, liberal talk show host Bill Press expressed disgust with the national anthem on his syndicated radio talk show, calling it an "abomination."
"It is a major crusade of mine; a major cause of mine, and that is to get rid of the Star-Spangled Banner," he said, according to a transcript provided by the Radio Equalizer.
... I mean when you think about it, it’s bombs bursting in air rocket’s red glare it all kinds of, you know a lot of national anthems are that way, all kinds of military jargon..."
Liberal talk show host Bill Press: National anthem an 'abomination' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com


Pretty much the OP right there....

 

[Cammmpbell]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists 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.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

The right don't understand shit. Their senior peope continue to agitate, irritate, generally piss off some third world country 10,000 miles away until finally they see a reason to launch cruise missles on them and then fiddle fuck around and let General Dynamics, Lockheed, Boeing et al make a trillion dollars in the process.........hell, Blackwater and Halliburton have to eat too.

Here's a self explanatory letter which was sent to Bill Clinton wanting to invade Iraq before there was any excuse at all:


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Cammmpbell]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists 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.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

The right don't understand shit. Their senior peope continue to agitate, irritate, generally piss off some third world country 10,000 miles away until finally they see a reason to launch cruise missles on them and then fiddle fuck around and let General Dynamics, Lockheed, Boeing et al make a trillion dollars in the process.........hell, Blackwater and Halliburton have to eat too.

Here's a self explanatory letter which was sent to Bill Clinton wanting to invade Iraq before there was any excuse at all:


Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Weeeall..............any of you warmongers have anything to say

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of my Left-wing buddies posted this in a recent thread:
"War and violence is fine with wingnuts so long as they don't have to fight it. Killing is fine and justified because you are scared. Hypocrite thy name is right wing conservative apologist for murder and death."

I thought the idea worthy of a deeper analysis....


1. Following WWI, and reaching an apex during the Vietnam War, the Left has generally been hostile to anything having to do with war, often embracing pacifism. The bumper-sticker “War is Not the Answer” expresses a nearly universal Left-wing view.

a. The Left believes that just about every conflict can be settled through negotiations, that war solves nothing, and that American expenditures on defense are merely a sign of militarism, imperialism, and the insatiable appetite of the “military-industrial complex.”

b. In fact, violence is deemed immoral, and the use of the military considered nefarious, unless it is used as boy scouts would be.

c. Many Leftists 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.



2. A central theme of Leftism is pacifism, largely because no welfare state can afford a strong military. Europeans came to rely on America to fight the world’s evils and even to defend their countries. This means that ‘equality’ trumps morality.

a. That is why Liberal elites are so confused: they venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free, decent, and prosperous America that has greater inequality of material wealth.

b. The Right regards pacifism as an accessory to evil.


3. Everything associated with the military is held in disrepute: nationalism, a strong military, honoring the military, referring to military dead as heroes. And even referring to anything as “evil.”

a. Since the end of WWII, the Left has opposed fighting almost any evil. Even when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Left opposed military intervention. What could be more moral than opposing Saddam’s take-over of a nation, and considering the strategic importance of the area, and even the fact that the UN supported the use of the military…still, two-thirds of the House Democrats, and 46 of 56 Democrat Senators voted against the war.

b. Pacifism, the antithesis of nationalism, is a major attraction of both the United Nations and the World Court, both venerated by the Left. These vaunted institutions are opposed to all nationalism, except, of course, Palestinian.



4. The generalization of pacifism leads to the Left’s view of nationalism, and then to contempt for the idea of American exceptionalism, of an America which is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as evil, an affirmation of traditional Judeo-Christian values which include support for the death penalty.



5. What is, then, the tenet that separates the Left from the Right, the Liberal from the conservative? It is simply this: by nature, is man basically good? The Leftist subscribes to the idea that a) man is, by his nature, basically good; b) the ‘Nobel Savage’ of Rousseau; c) given the correct government and laws, society can establish Utopia here, on this Earth, and now. Based on this doctrine, pacifism is logical. As is nuclear disarmament.

a. A distinguishing characteristic of Liberals and Leftists is an aversion to recognizing or acknowledging evil and its permutations, i.e., communism. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see.

b. Pacifism is the proclivity to appease evil and ignore the sad facts of life. It is a form of wishful thinking.



6. The Right understands that man’s nature, while not inherently evil, is not good, in the sense of altruistic. Personal aggrandizement is a very strong element in human nature, and, therefore, there must be checks and balances, and these may include force, and, in fact, wars.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

b. The Bible cites God Himself as declaring that the “will of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
Largely covered in "Still The Best Hope," Prager

The right don't understand shit. Their senior peope continue to agitate, irritate, generally piss off some third world country 10,000 miles away until finally they see a reason to launch cruise missles on them and then fiddle fuck around and let General Dynamics, Lockheed, Boeing et al make a trillion dollars in the process.........hell, Blackwater and Halliburton have to eat too.

Here's a self explanatory letter which was sent to Bill Clinton wanting to invade Iraq before there was any excuse at all:


Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Weeeall..............any of you warmongers have anything to say

I'm sure that you are unaware that any discussion of the article you've evidenced boils down to a validation of the OP.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[Polk]

I think you're making that up, reggie....

According to snopes, no one has produced convincing evidence of such signs....

snopes.com: Keep Off the Grass


How do you like this verse...


Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,
Horatius at the Bridge by Lord Macaulay

No one has produced evidence of people spitting on soldiers, but you keep trotting that one out.

"Through a complicated set of circumstances, when he was at Fort Bragg prior to going to Vietnam, he was befriended by Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and helped produce the iconic pro-soldier anthem, "The Ballad of the Green Berets." When he returned, the song had become the number one song in America.

A Boston radio talk show invited him as a guest. Poison and invective came in from one of the callers, "If you weren't killing babies in Vietnam, you'd be killing them here," she hissed. Although she was unable to spit directly on him, the call was the verbal equivalent.

Across the breakfast table from me sat Rudy Loupias. Rudy fought in the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines at Dai Do in 1968. Little known to the public and recognized by historians as the Battle of Dong Ha, this pitched fight saw brutal combat, sometimes hand-to-hand.

The American people were in no mood to support Rudy when he came back from Vietnam. When he returned, he kept his personal history quiet. "I didn't reveal I was a Vietnam veteran because they labeled us as ‘baby killers,'" he recalls. "Even at parties nobody knew I was a Vietnam veteran."

Rudy thinks the public should treat soldiers the way they did after the first Iraq war. "It's too bad you had to feel that way — the hurt," he says. He didn't tell me anything about being spit on, but the pain in his voice says enough."
Spitting on Veterans - The New York Sun



This is a pretty well written exposition of the point....and, if you are correct that the actual expectoration didn't occur, are you prepared to claim that the attitude that led to the belief that it did, didn't exist?

Based on the above, does it not make the point that the OP makes?

It's fun to watch you backpedal. First it was that soldiers were spit on. Now it's someone "feels" like they were spit on because someone said something mean to them.

 

[JoeB131]

"On Tuesday, liberal talk show host Bill Press expressed disgust with the national anthem on his syndicated radio talk show, calling it an "abomination."
"It is a major crusade of mine; a major cause of mine, and that is to get rid of the Star-Spangled Banner," he said, according to a transcript provided by the Radio Equalizer.
... I mean when you think about it, it’s bombs bursting in air rocket’s red glare it all kinds of, you know a lot of national anthems are that way, all kinds of military jargon..."
Liberal talk show host Bill Press: National anthem an 'abomination' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com


Pretty much the OP right there....

OR that it's really an awful song.

There are a lot of songs like America the Beautiful that are more inspiring about what America sould be about.

A song written during America's stupidest war (The War of 1812) about how he loves him a flag isn't what America is about.

 

[Sunni Man]

The problem with liberals is they view the world from a fantasy perspective.

Where reality is just an inconvenience; and ideology and agenda trump common sense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one has produced evidence of people spitting on soldiers, but you keep trotting that one out.

"Through a complicated set of circumstances, when he was at Fort Bragg prior to going to Vietnam, he was befriended by Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and helped produce the iconic pro-soldier anthem, "The Ballad of the Green Berets." When he returned, the song had become the number one song in America.

A Boston radio talk show invited him as a guest. Poison and invective came in from one of the callers, "If you weren't killing babies in Vietnam, you'd be killing them here," she hissed. Although she was unable to spit directly on him, the call was the verbal equivalent.

Across the breakfast table from me sat Rudy Loupias. Rudy fought in the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines at Dai Do in 1968. Little known to the public and recognized by historians as the Battle of Dong Ha, this pitched fight saw brutal combat, sometimes hand-to-hand.

The American people were in no mood to support Rudy when he came back from Vietnam. When he returned, he kept his personal history quiet. "I didn't reveal I was a Vietnam veteran because they labeled us as ‘baby killers,'" he recalls. "Even at parties nobody knew I was a Vietnam veteran."

Rudy thinks the public should treat soldiers the way they did after the first Iraq war. "It's too bad you had to feel that way — the hurt," he says. He didn't tell me anything about being spit on, but the pain in his voice says enough."
Spitting on Veterans - The New York Sun



This is a pretty well written exposition of the point....and, if you are correct that the actual expectoration didn't occur, are you prepared to claim that the attitude that led to the belief that it did, didn't exist?

Based on the above, does it not make the point that the OP makes?

It's fun to watch you backpedal. First it was that soldiers were spit on. Now it's someone "feels" like they were spit on because someone said something mean to them.

So...you are stipulating that (Liberal) folks say "something mean to them."

I'll accept that as you moving ever closer to admitting the truth of the OP, Polkie....

 

[PoliticalChic]

"On Tuesday, liberal talk show host Bill Press expressed disgust with the national anthem on his syndicated radio talk show, calling it an "abomination."
"It is a major crusade of mine; a major cause of mine, and that is to get rid of the Star-Spangled Banner," he said, according to a transcript provided by the Radio Equalizer.
... I mean when you think about it, it’s bombs bursting in air rocket’s red glare it all kinds of, you know a lot of national anthems are that way, all kinds of military jargon..."
Liberal talk show host Bill Press: National anthem an 'abomination' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com


Pretty much the OP right there....

OR that it's really an awful song.

There are a lot of songs like America the Beautiful that are more inspiring about what America sould be about.

A song written during America's stupidest war (The War of 1812) about how he loves him a flag isn't what America is about.

And, here is Press, the inveterate Liberal, with a back-handed comment about American exceptionalism, as well:

"PRESS: Are we [Americans] the only ones who are brave on the planet? I mean all the brave people live here. I mean it’s just stupid I think. I’m embarrassed, I’m embarrassed every time I hear it. "

And this on D-Day.
Amazing that you Libs have Van Gogh's ear for politics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with liberals is they view the world from a fantasy perspective.

Where reality is just an inconvenience; and ideology and agenda trump common sense.

Couldn't agree more, Sunni...

"Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince Liberals."
Me.

 

[Nosmo King]

Does the Left embrace pacifism, or does the Right embrace brutality?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does the Left embrace pacifism, or does the Right embrace brutality?

Brutality?


Got your example of it right here: Those Sesame Street thugs!!


"A new documentary released by Al Jazeera exposes the use of children’s songs and heavy metal music to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bay — a tactic that came about not long after President George W. Bush created the camp to detain prisoners in the “war on terror” against Al Qaeda."

Read more: ‘Sesame Street’ songs and heavy metal blasted to torture Guantanamo detainees: report   - NY Daily News

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem with liberals is they view the world from a fantasy perspective.

Where reality is just an inconvenience; and ideology and agenda trump common sense.

Where do I do that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The problem with liberals is they view the world from a fantasy perspective.

Where reality is just an inconvenience; and ideology and agenda trump common sense.

Like those fantasy WMD's??

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with liberals is they view the world from a fantasy perspective.

Where reality is just an inconvenience; and ideology and agenda trump common sense.

Like those fantasy WMD's??

Carby, "the Perfect Foil", enters, stage right.

BAGHDAD — American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country’s main nuclear site.

American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation 12 miles south of Baghdad, which had been the site of Iraq’s nuclear program.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html

 

[Polk]

"Through a complicated set of circumstances, when he was at Fort Bragg prior to going to Vietnam, he was befriended by Staff Sergeant Barry Sadler and helped produce the iconic pro-soldier anthem, "The Ballad of the Green Berets." When he returned, the song had become the number one song in America.

A Boston radio talk show invited him as a guest. Poison and invective came in from one of the callers, "If you weren't killing babies in Vietnam, you'd be killing them here," she hissed. Although she was unable to spit directly on him, the call was the verbal equivalent.

Across the breakfast table from me sat Rudy Loupias. Rudy fought in the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines at Dai Do in 1968. Little known to the public and recognized by historians as the Battle of Dong Ha, this pitched fight saw brutal combat, sometimes hand-to-hand.

The American people were in no mood to support Rudy when he came back from Vietnam. When he returned, he kept his personal history quiet. "I didn't reveal I was a Vietnam veteran because they labeled us as ‘baby killers,'" he recalls. "Even at parties nobody knew I was a Vietnam veteran."

Rudy thinks the public should treat soldiers the way they did after the first Iraq war. "It's too bad you had to feel that way — the hurt," he says. He didn't tell me anything about being spit on, but the pain in his voice says enough."
Spitting on Veterans - The New York Sun



This is a pretty well written exposition of the point....and, if you are correct that the actual expectoration didn't occur, are you prepared to claim that the attitude that led to the belief that it did, didn't exist?

Based on the above, does it not make the point that the OP makes?

It's fun to watch you backpedal. First it was that soldiers were spit on. Now it's someone "feels" like they were spit on because someone said something mean to them.

So...you are stipulating that (Liberal) folks say "something mean to them."

I'll accept that as you moving ever closer to admitting the truth of the OP, Polkie....

No, I'm saying one person said something mean to someone.