Double Standards of some Liberals
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 07-08-2004 - 1:39pm |
I was listening to the radio the other day and two men were debating in regards to Kerry. The liberal man was holding a sign that read "Kerry-a war hero"...When asked why he believed Kerry to be a war hero he explained his courage in fighting in Vietnam and that alone should qualify him as being a "war hero"...then the conservative asked him if he was going to vote for Kerry and the liberal man said "Definately!" The liberal man brought up the prisoner abuse in Iraq and how those men and women who performed those war crimes by putting underwear over these prisoners head and humiliating them were a disgrace to the country. He was then asked by the other man if he'd ever vote for any of these men or women that performed such acts down the road for President? The liberal man said "heck no". The other man went on to play a tape where Kerry himself in an interview spoke of the atrocities he and fellow militarymen participated in such as burning down Vietnam villages and other activities that were war crimes while in Vietnam. Kerry with his own words and voice admitted such things happened and do happen in a time of war no doubt about it. ( you could hear the audio tape of his interview) The man then asked the sign holding, Kerry supporting, liberal man how he could vote for someone who actually burned down and killed people in their own villages during Vietnam for President but would never consider voting for those who commited war crimes such as humliation in Iraq in the future as President? Does that make Kerry a war hero he asked? The liberal man was at a loss for words. He contradicted himself...he judged these soldiers in Iraq as a "disgrace to their country" but would vote for Kerry for President of the United States of America.
The reason for posting this story was to give a little insight on the double standards some liberals hold for their own and the mind-set the have.
Sorry so long but it's worth the read :)

Pages
I rest my case.
When have I said it is "unpatriottic" to not support Bush? And you say even countless arguements? I am sorry but you are not correct in that accusation...I don't think it is unpatriotic to stand up for what you believe and make an arguement against the President or anyone for that matter...I think personally insulting the President as your only support for disliking him is well...immature...but other than that I fully support standing up for what you believe and questioning the government...I do so myself. Also for every link or article posted to discredit the current administration there is always another stating something different and pointing out the "spin" that article may have put on it to shed some extra negative light on Bush and Co. It goes both ways, but it surely doesn't mean it gets "dismissed" for I feel any good news or refute to the latter gets "dismissed" by the left too. If I believed everything the liberal spinned media tried feeding me, I would be blind...but I don't.
<>
There was plenty of information stating otherwise but some on the left refuse to acknoledge that, that information was what Kerry and Clinton and many many others had to go on which concluded their decision in Iraq's WMD program and threat but later retracted and pointed the finger at Bush...it seems to be the trend to point the finger at solely him when indeed many others who are doing the "finger pointing" felt the same way as the President until some things went sour in regards to the war. That is typical I guess but it does make me and some others become defensive over that.
Regardless of the WMD mishaps I feel and I am sure many others feel (at least the one's I know) that it was still needed to go to war with Saddam and Iraq. I think only time will tell ulimately if the war was a mistake or if it was something that would secure the country and world for years to come. We'll see.
I really don't get your answer on this. Sorry.
;)
Edited 7/12/2004 1:43 pm ET ET by nicecanadianlady
You must remember that often these kids that are fighting in the wars are so painfully young. Their judgement is not mature enough. Often their fledgling sense of morality is not established and they are put into situations and circumstances of fear and deprivation where ANYONE'S judgement would be seriously impaired.
Sometimes the anti-war argument is lost on those that don't seem to understand the whole point. War is not about heroism, parades and duty (rah rah rah). It's not just about what war forces you to do to others. It is about what it does to you.
Personally I think few people just vote for anyone without at least getting some basic information about who they vote, and what they stand for. But then again, I live in Canada, so maybe americans are different.
I still think that two choices is not enough for true democracy. We have that problem here too, although to a lesser extent, as parties have been created and changed over the years, and we have this concept of a 'minority government' where power is somewhat shared. Furthermore, there has been more variety of parties in power at the provincial level. Again, my *personal* opinion, is that countries need at least three parties with a 'possibility' of getting power.
Pages