Skip to comments.Who The Liberals Really Are
Posted on 08/23/2007 7:32:51 PM PDT by ChessExpert
Kerry testifying on the American soldier in Vietnamin:
they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
One word: EVIL.
It’s scary to think that he was only 1 state away from becoming commander-in-chief.
I totally agree with you..
Communists, islamists or idiots. There is no other possibility.
I think it's a mistake to refer to them like they're just peaceniks. They've been at war with this country and its foundations since the '60's, so they aren't some kind of peaceful conscientious objectors. They're Marxists out to destroy our way of life.
Lying delusionists or childlike dreamers?
The Democrats of today do not posture themselves as being ‘American’. They seem to have some ‘world citizenship’ view which would be totally unrecognizable by the original ‘racists’ (KKK) who founded the party.
The so called ‘Democrats’ of today have been replaced by Stalinist and Marxists and are in no way similar to what Democrats originally stood for.
I believe that the time when they lost their soul was not McGoverns nomination, but rather the 1968 Convention in Chicago. Former leftist David Horowitz painted a very vivid picture of how the riots in Chicago, and the circus that the convention became was orchestrated by actual communists. Humphrey got the nomination, but the Democrat Party was never the same after that. The way had been paved for McGovern.
I remember watching the '68 and '72 conventions. You might be correct about the '68 one screwing up the Donkey party. When I became of voting age in '72, I was a confirmed Dem. But after watching leftist weirdo after leftist weirdo take the podium during the '72 convention, I knew I wasn't going to voting for McGovern. I actually don't know who I voted for, and it wasn't Nixon either.
The lefties learned a few things after '72, and one thing they learned is that they would have to be much more sneakier and stealthier. They realized that Americans would not elect a far left wacko. And at that time the Dems as a whole were far more centrist than they are now. The only reason McGovern got a chance is because of the fatigue of the war. Many conservative Dems like myself hoped (naively as it turned out) that the crushing defeat of the leftist wackos in '72 would forever dismiss them and their screwy ideas from conquering the party. But the ultra-lefties were just biding their time. The Dem Party as a whole has swung much further to the left since '72, but the Dem elites still don't want to give the impression that they're hardcore leftist wackos. Even though they are.
We’re apparently the same age, though you were apparently more intelligent and grown up than I was. I actually voted for McGovern. I was under the influence of some very left wing people back then, and my leftism stayed with me until a year or so after I left the service. I burn with shame to admit to you that I voted for Carter too, but I was on-board by the time Regan ran. I wish I could claim the “Churchill Axiom” and say it was because I “had a heart,” but the truth is that I was a weakling and wanted to “get along.”
I disagree. If you voted for Reagan in 1980, then you were far smarter than me. I still voted for Dem idiots until Bush. I knew, even after he ran a miserable campaign, that I should have voted for Dole in '96. But sometimes it's hard to shake your party identification. And since most of my friends and family were ardent Dems, I identified with the Dems. I guess we'll just have to be happy that we finally both shook off the shackles of the Dems.
The tragedy is this country needs two strong parties to counter each other. Too bad the Libertarians aren't where the Dems are with the Dems only getting one percent of the vote and the Libertarians a good alternative to the Republicans. (I say this as a good Republican) This country would be in pretty good shape.
I often think that the Libertarians are much closer to the intent of our founders. I often feel frustration with the Republicans, and feel drawn to them. I've never voted Libertarian but, well you know.
I enjoyed the exchange. Take care and have a great weekend..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.