Posted on 06/14/2009 10:54:24 AM PDT by yetidog
I am generally reluctant to argue politics with friends or acquaintances in social settings, but was pushed to it last night at my daughter’s house…and probably lost the friendship of more than one or two people who observed the whole thing and were disturbed by the intensity and mean-spirited content of the comments I directed to my liberal adversary
One of my co-workers is a lefty who railed at W’s foreign policy yet has a photo of Harry S. Truman tacked to her cubicle wall. When she went on one of her deranged tirades (which I always kept out of), I didn’t have the heart to tell her that Truman is the only leader who has ever dropped a nuclear bomb on innocent civilians.
“the big-spending liberal Democrat who knowingly took us into a war he manufactured and that resulted in the deaths of 59,000 American soldiers”
History, dog, history.
We had people in Viet Nam under both Eisenhower and Kennedy. The reason we were there was to oppose the spread of communism.
Back then, things looked a lot different than they do now. It was widely presumed that the USSR would win Cold War I. They were doing this through “low level conflicts” around the globe.
Those with prescience saw that if Viet Nam fell all of Indochina would fall (the Domino Theory), which indeed came to pass. (When some libtard starts laughing scornfully at the Domino Theory, just ask him if he is totally ignorant of the fate of Cambodia and Laos, and if he never heard of boat people.)
Opposing evil is always a good thing to do, and that is why we were in Viet Nam. What Johnson is guilty of is cowardice: he was afraid to try and win the war. He was afraid that the Chinese and Soviets would come in, as the Chinese did in Korea.
Nixon was elected on a promise to get us out of Viet Nam with honor. He delivered. Vietnamization was a success. The South Viet Namese defeated the communists in two major battles. Then, after Watergate weakened the forces of good, evil slimebuckets in our legislature reneged on our promises to supply the South. That is why the North was finally able to take the South and launch its bloody reign of terror.
We had the war won until Teddy Kennedy and other servants of Satan handed victory to the communists.
And speaking of Watergate, all that crapola about it being some huge constitutional crisis is buncombe.
The dims were treating potential donors to the services of whores, and paying for it out of Democrat Party funds. Some of Nixon’s staff thought it would be a good thing if the electorate became aware of that. However, not being criminals, they didn’t know how to do it. This led them to hire some incompetents, who got caught.
Nixon’s staff, of course, kept him in the dark until the last minute. Until after the last minute, actually: they waited until he had denied it on TV before they told him.
At that point he decided to cover it up, which was not so unreasonable, considering that it was a minor matter compared to the crimes that FDR, Truman, and Kennedy had covered up. Working together, the forces of evil (dims in the legislature, judiciary, academia, and media) were able to exaggerate it out of all proportion.
Rather than put the country through the turmoil of an impeachment (and he would certainly have been acquitted by the Senate), Nixon resigned—unlike Klintoon. This resignation allowed the dims to throw South Viet Nam to the wolves. This, of course, did incalculable harm to the US, and continues to harm us today, which pleases the dims to no end.
How is that any different than folks from our side quoting Limbaugh?
We have no disagreement here. I have taught American History at the college level for over 20 years and agree with most of what you say. My point is that considering Iraq as key feature of BDS, LBJ’s phony Gulf of Tonkin incident was far a more serious misuse of the truth than was Bush’s (apparently) mistaken assertion that Iraq possessed WMD.
Converting a liberal is like seducing a virgin ;-) You gotta go slow sometimes.
Did I quote Limbaugh? In any event, I would hardly call anyone or everyone who might quote Limbaugh intellectually impoverished. On second thought, I might.... as it is liberals who are usually running around quoting him.
I never said you did.
I asked, regarding your statement:
argue eloquently (1) the group-think intellectual poverty of liberalism
How is quoting Limbaugh (as many do) not the same as group-think intellectual poverty?
It's just a question.
It's just a question.
How, then, is quoting Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (as many do) not the same as group-think intellectual poverty?
It's just a question.
It's not like they're quoting some brain-dead Hollywood actor...
Nope.
Quoting a radio actor is much different, isn't it?
You compare Limbaugh to Jefferson and Madison?
Really?
FYI, this poster you’re conversing with appears to DETEST Limbaugh. He comes on every thread, Limbaugh related or not, and denegrates him.
In any event, entering into a discussion on Limbaugh with you is absolutely pointless -- a waste of time. Had I seen your screen name before I pressed the Reply button, I wouldn't have bothered to respond.
You may retreat under your bridge now...
Those are all good points, but at my age I don’t have the time to deal with lame brains,,,I usually laugh and walk away...its getting easier as I get older (read old) to have the attitude of I don’t entertain fools easily. They are stealing what few years I have left if I join in their stupidity...But when I was younger, I would do it, and usually could slap them around with words....it was fun...
Don’t let age hold you back, particularly at this time and place in America.
Please try to pay attention.
Thanks for the encouragement...
At least your relative reads what you send him ,My sisters delete my e-mails without reading them.
6. Never accept the argument of Republican “wealth” and by inference greed.
“Sure the Republicans are the party of big money, but the Democrats are the party of really big money.” - Noam Chomsky
Just point out all the 100’s of millions that BO had in campaign money.
Whenever they start their holier-than-thou moralizing with me I say things like ‘that’s religion’, ‘that’s dogma not policy’, ‘don’t push your morality on me’, you have no right to say what’s right or wrong’, ‘go build a church already’, ‘that’s your religion not mine’, ‘violation of separation of church and state’.
Liberalism is a religion, pure and simple. Attack it as such.
“LBJ’s phony Gulf of Tonkin incident was far a more serious misuse of the truth”
I’m not at all certain what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. I have seen some pretty strange things on surface-search radar.
“than was Bush’s (apparently) mistaken assertion that Iraq possessed WMD.”
IMO he was set up by a cabal of Klintonoids at the CIA. His own fault, really. Instead of that “tone” crap, on day one he should have fired everybody who didn’t puke at the sound of the bent one’s voice.
[My sisters delete my e-mails without reading them.]
I’m sorry to hear that. Family is important, perhaps you’ll have to do as I’m doing and just keep in touch on personal matters - make it clear in the title. Don’t ruin your family contact over politics.
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.