Skip to comments.Why do Democrats crave defeat?
Posted on 03/24/2007 10:39:38 PM PDT by jazusamo
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Please explain something to me. What is this obsession that liberals have with seeing America destroyed?
Why are they so intent on humiliating their fellow citizens? And why don't they have at least some modicum of pride about the greatest nation the world has ever produced?
In other words, why are they so insistent on seeing America pummeled?
It is clear from the way they recoil when someone refers to them as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" that there is a piece of them (however insignificantly tiny) that does not wish to be classified as such.
But I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they are so offended. It seems to me that if you love your country, that you love it most when it faces its toughest challenges. But this is not the case with John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, and the other 215 that first authored, then voted for, the bill that would hand over victory to the terrorists we have been battling so hard to defeat since 9/11.
In their own echo-chamber vanity Murtha, Pelosi and company believe themselves to be smarter than the commanders of the operations in the war on terror. And they believe that we will sit mesmerized, like sheep, while they single-handedly attempt to give the terrorists a date for victory - August 31, 2008.
But they didn't just author defeat - they campaigned for it.
Only a day or two earlier the "let the terrorists win" bill looked like it was in deep trouble. Some of the more socially conservative blue-dog democrats argued that it would not play well to the average citizen to be authoring a bill, and to hold hostage the paychecks of the men and women in uniform over the issue of when we give victory to the other side.
And that is when the $96 million dollar supplement began to expand like Murtha's waistline. When it was finally passed it had ballooned to nearly $124 million.
Now don't get me wrong - I think that spending more on defense is nearly always a good thing. The problem with this evolving spending measure was that it was all about the pork. The additional $28 million added to the bill was the price of all the "gimmes" that Democrat leadership was forced to pony up just to bribe, er... buy, scratch that... secure the reluctant congressional members votes. And by increasing the price tag by more than an additional one fourth of the monies of the original supplement, they were only able to get 218 votes - the barest of bare minimums to get the measure passed.
So not only did the Democrats author a resolution that called for the terrorists to claim victory on August 31, 2008, not only did they twist arms of lower ranking members to get them on board, now they were willing to spend the money that you and I are sending them by way of our tax bill - to fund the effort to buy congressional members' loyalty to the concept of the terrorists winning.
Am I the only one in America that thinks this is truly, dastardly, diabolically - sick?
Personally I believe I work far too many hours, for not nearly enough money, to be paying the exorbitant amount of taxes - to only have them be used against the safety and welfare of my family.
How do these people sleep at night?
It is one thing to attempt to a have a philosophical position that spouts platitudes about the violence of our world. It's another to be against war as a general principle and long for the day when conflicts can truly be decided by judgment and fair play.
But when we have sinister forces on earth that seek our destruction and we have members of Congress who instead of representing the safety, security, and freedoms of America - decide instead to take our own income and bankroll our future destruction, then somebody, somewhere has to say something!
Fortunately we have a President who will have the judgment to veto this measure. But I am still greatly disturbed by the fact that the "People's House" of those who represent us, are so eager to wave the flag of surrender. They could not telegraph any more precisely how they would like to see us lose, and the terrorists win, than by putting a date on a piece of legislation for total terrorist victory And they did it before our watching eyes.
It is unwise to believe that 218 congressional members know more about the situation on the ground than the commanders who serve us without political bias or corruption.
It is unsafe to surrender the type of staging ground Iraq would become if we were to leave the terrorists there unmolested and undefeated.
It is un-American to act in the interest of our enemies.
It is unpatriotic (against ones love for ones own country) to legislate, campaign in favor of, and bribe representatives to vote for defeat.
And it is unacceptable that Democrats spit on We The People in this fashion.
This time the choice is Hillery Clinton, the one person more incompetent than JEC.
I've never seen such strong words in print - except on FR. He actually called the democrats "un-American" and "un-patriotic" .. pretty strong stuff in D.C. .. and I loved this statement: "... this is truly, dastardly, diabolically - sick?"
BUT .. I HAVE THE ANSWER TO Kevin McCullough's question. In the book, "Legacy: Paying the price for the Clinton years", written by Rich Lowry, Rich quotes an article by Jacob Weisberg, titled "Clincest". Weisberg was marveling at all the incestuous relationships within the Clinton admin. Many of the heads of depts were Rhodes Scholars and 8 staff members were former Harvard professors. He outlined all the academic and social ties of the Clinton team, making for "the increasingly cozy relationships among press, law, academia and govt that now mark the Clinton era". Weisberg called this group a "hermetic and incestuous clique".
Rich went on - This elite didn't just feel a call to run the country, it felt it deserved to run the country. Then, Rich continued to quote Weisberg, and it was a stunning revelation: "They think of themselves as entitled to power in a way their antecedents never did" ... "the Clinton circle has a pronounced class consciousness that tells them they're not just lucky to be here. They're running things because they're the best". How could anyone reject the leadership of a group of people so intelligent and famously "conscience stricken?" In the Clintons, this sense of entitlement produced a deep anger at the fact that their ambitions encountered resistance.
Bush was not supposed to win in 2000. Gore was supposed to win and when he didn't the "elites" went ballistic. How dare the public reject those who were entitled to govern. The Bush-hatred is all wound up in these facts about the "entitlement mentality of the democrats". This is why Bush must fail at being President because he had the audacity to take away their entitled position of power. He must be rendered moot and a failure. That's why we have the hate-Bush all the time garbage. And .. frankly .. I'm pretty sick of it.
The going rate used to be 30 pieces of silver.
Just another part of the Democrats' "Contract On America".
because they are progressists who like to judge the dead, fabricate paper against those who can't (Schiavo), in other words death worshipers and homosexual necrophiliacs at heart, and that this war on terror is shaping into a war which attacks their very hearts they dare not acknowledge nor show fully... yet.
However, the Gathering of Eagles tells me that the dems will not get their way .. and this disgusting vote will keep them out of the WH in 2008.
As far as I'm concerned, its Blood Money. The Democrats are willing the sacrifice the lives of American soldiers for money. Where is their Patriotism?
I learned that in Spring 2001, during the event that really made me a committed FReeper. MSM non-coverage of the Cincinnati riots was astounding. Here we were, getting daily, real-time, first-hand reports on FR, often from people making transcripts from local and even police radio broadcasts, while the national media made barely a peep about the whole event. Presumably because it wouldn't reflect well on a favored minority group.
MSM media ops on the American people went downhill after 9/11. A media black hole similar to the one above happened almost immediately, with respect to 9/11 images, for example.
The Left is a deep current of Decadence in Western Civilization that, if not defeated, will destroy Western Civilization.
It is as dangerous as the black plague that ravished the world in centuries past, but it is even more deadly. It threatens the complete destruction of Western Civilization, an accomplishment that the black plague failed to achieve.
The West cannot be destroyed from without, i.e. by foreign enemies. However, the West is in mortal danger of destruction from within, by the forces of Decadence--the Left.
If it were not for the Left--the enemy within--the foreign enemies of Western Civilization would be of little consequence and would be easily dispatched.
The United States is the last, great stronghold of Western Civilization in the world today. That's why her enemies want her destroyed.
Did they call the Pentagon Police?
You can sense in every Vietnam veteran the loss they carry, having been robbed of such great honor they had earned.
Are you sensing anything from this Vietnam Vet?
My BS detector's on full gain.
Every member of the United States military today should find a Vietnam veteran and ask them what it is like to go through life having lost a war.
Theives and a Drama Department at the Pentagon. Who knew?
The short answer is because that is what their Lord and Master Satan wants for America. And like good lackeys, they are doing their master's bidding.
Survival requires discrimination. You must be able to discriminate between good and evil, safe and dangerous, true and false, God and satan, and you must be free to act on your discriminations.
Sometime in the past 50 years, men of the west (not just Democrats) lost the ability to discriminate. In fact, the failure of the Bush administration is occurring because when they discriminate, as they must, they fear that they are doing something wrong. When they are accusedof discrimination by the left, they act guilty.
We need to get the ability to discriminate back, or we will die.
Thanks for the article. Many outstanding comments on this thread. BTTT!
"What is this obsession that liberals have with seeing America destroyed?"
I've read some pretty good answers to this question so far on this thread. Let me add my bit. Yes, these bolsheviks (I prefer this term rather than "liberal". Seems a bit more accurate) hate the U.S. and hunger for it's destruction. My niece is a bolshevik. She explained that the U.S. consumes a majority of the world's resources, holds a majority of the world's wealth, and gives little in return. She feels ("Feels" is a good bolshevik word. Denies reason) that this is unfair. If the United States falls, all these resources and that wealth will be reallocated, and her world will be a better, far fairer place. She believes Corporations are the mechanism for this exploitation, and are closely associated with government interests. Capitalism is evil and merciless. It leaves the broken and downtrodden in its wake.
She is a hypocrite, as are all bolsheviks. Her husband works in the aerospace industry as a computer programer. He is an immigrant that has come to the U.S. to make a better living for himself and his family. He too, hates the United States. Doesn't make any sense does it? Additionally, bolsheviks must remain loyal to their sense of intellectual superiority. Bragging rights at their evening cocktail clutches are very important to them.
It's a good question.
Think about N.O.W. Then Bill Clinton.
Then, if you dare, Juanita.
The democrat party is very much now run by women and homosexuals. Not all democrats fit that narrow definition, but the agenda clearly, belongs to those two groups.
What do women and homosexuals have in common? They do not crave to be strong. They seek to be desirable.
At some level, pardon me ladies, but fact is, most seek to be taken.
That's the problem. Liberals want America to be a woman. And then ... be taken. I believe on some level, that's what liberals are about.
There are far too many liberals out there, who want to lose.
It helps if the "taker" says the right things. But fact is, liberals don't seek to win.
Except against conservatives. Because conservatives don't want to take them, or have anything to do with them. A woman scorned?
It may be that simple, IMO.
It's quite dangerous. Liberals are putting a dress on America. Next comes the lipstick.
Your whole synopsis is eloquently put.
Ya know, I often call these people "stupid", "idiotic", or just befuddled "dumbasses", but the reality is after what we saw this week with the outrageous "defunding vote" these people are just plain EVIL BASTARDS!