The fact is Liberals are outraged with the Bush administration for using the troops to execute a personal agenda, destroying our very precious rights from our Constitution, and for giving America a reputation that may never allow the respect we deserve from the international community.
Please describe this personal agenda.
Please list the rights that Americans have lost because of this president.
Please list the nations that don’t respect us. Please explain how we have lost respect in the international community.
Liberals are way more open minded than Conservatives. On the issue of climate change, we are presented with a two basic sides. There is a major problem with man made global warming vs. Global warming is the biggest hoax in history. (we are excluding side arguments here such as “there is global warming, but it isn’t man made”) I think that this was never really a political argument until the American people started making it an issue to address. Conservatives needed to protect their big oil buddies so they insisted on making this a political issue and not a scientific one. Liberals looked at the facts and predictions from environmental scientists and the conservatives had no one to attack until one liberal made a movie about it.
I have written a myriad of articles debunking global warming as a man made issue. I have presented proof that global warming is happening and that man is not the cause of it. If man is not the cause of this global warming then how can man fix it? In my articles I presented theories on how to solve the problem but it is outside the realm of our technical ability to solve. This makes the man made global warming position a hoax. Try reading my posts on the subject and countering them with facts then I might give some credence to your claim that all liberals are open minded and more open minded than conservatives.
But the left wing insists that the Constitution is the sacred document that kept this country free and safe since it was signed. Anyone who tries to take away the liberties that our founding fathers promised to us in the Constitution is a fascist.
Back in 1962 John F. Kennedy, issued a statement on the then steel crisis, and I quote "Simultaneous and identical actions of United States Steel and other leading steel corporations increasing steel prices by $6 a ton constitute a wholly unjustifiable and irresponsible defiance of the public interest in this serious hour in our Nation's History, when we are confronted with grave crises in Berlin and Southeast Asia, when we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability, when we are asking reservists to leave their homes and families for months on end and servicemen to risk their lives...." The Steel industry backed down.
Congresswoman Waters responded, in part, "And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …"
She meant nationalizing but could not get the word right.
"House Democrats responded to President’s Bush’s call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live.
Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply.
They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was canceled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.
At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that “there were multiple reasons for the postponement” including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.
Here are the highlights from briefing
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling
1115
We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market."
Here are three examples of liberal democrats that want to take over peoples business contrary to the constitutions unreasonable search and seizure clauses. Let’s add to this the Clinton administration wanting to nationalize health care and the auto industry. Will any citizen have the right to start a business and become successful?
So what if you own stock in these companies, your rights don’t matter because stealing the companies from you is what is best for the nation in their eyes. These are public statements made openly not in secret or a misstatement by someone.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993.
So according to a liberal democrat our rights are not important when it is an issue they don’t like. Please show me the converse with conservatives wanting to take away our rights and property in the same manner.
The Bush administration ignored many sources that said an Iraq invasion was not worth it and there were no WMDs, but because Bush had a personal vendetta on Saddam prior to his presidency Bush followed through with the unnecessary war, resulting in over 4100 troops dead. Liberals want our military back home to defend the home front from potential attacks in the future, but conservatives don’t care about that and would rather leave the men and women in uniform to die in unconstitutional wars.
I have written on this topic extensively and have yet to be disproved. Here is your chance to do what others have failed to do. Please show me where the President wanted to go to war with Iraq. Statements and transcripts of the Presidents meetings prior to going to war say the opposite.
The president with the approval of the Congress sent those troops into harms way. He felt it was justified the Congress agreed and the war began. How is it that this war was wrong when we were attacked first? The terrorists we are fighting start turning up in Iraq. Wounded terrorists are in Iraqi hospitals. Iraq said they had so much in stockpiles of WMD at the end of the Gulf war. The UN destroyed a large amount of them but not all. The difference was still a threat to us and since Iraq refused to give up the stuff they said they had and we were seeing a link with Al Qaeda why would we want our enemy to have access to any weapons of mass destruction? Iraq did not do as they agreed to do in the armistice agreement which means the war was not over and was re-started. To date we have found over 500 tons of WMD but I guess that is not enough to count as any serious amount of WMD. Don’t come back with the statement that they were degraded that was another find of 500 shells of chemical munitions, this find was intentionally confused with the 500 tons of WMD in order to belittle the find.
