Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: efnwriter
What I don't understand is how a "liberal" minded media can support such a evil regime, slavery, torture, racism, and fascism. I was listening to Jim Bohanin tonight and found out that Saddam's Bath party supported the Nazis during WWII, does the sh### ever end??? And are the libs ever coherent???
5 posted on 01/14/2003 12:44:49 AM PST by Porterville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Porterville
It's not about doing what is right...it is about opposing Bush. Remember, when X42 was saying the same thing...they went along. So...they agree when it fits the agenda.
8 posted on 01/14/2003 5:15:05 AM PST by NELSON111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
What I don't understand is how a "liberal" minded media can support such a evil regime, slavery, torture, racism, and fascism.

All of the "progressive" movements, when you think about them, contained similar elements....rapid social change, disregard for long held principles and norms, a twisted reliance on a "new fairness." For the working class, which eventually turned to forms of slavery and torture to any opposition. etc.

For example, NAZI was short for the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Imagine history a hundred years from now when this natural trend of states away from freedom becomes more clear and predictable. Wouldn't it be great if historians note the natural resiliancy of the Americans that refuted the trend once and for all in the first few elections of the 21st century? A guy can dream....

9 posted on 01/14/2003 5:23:00 AM PST by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
The "liberal" media (New York Times, Time Magazine, L.A. Times, for three quick examples) has been strong supporters of (i.e. published long series of glowing, supportive articles about): 1. Hitler 2. Stalin 3. Mao 4. Ho Chi Min 5. Castro. Just to name a few of the more prominent dictators they have supported.

What is it about the liberal media that is baffling? They are always on the wrong (evil) side of anything and everything.

10 posted on 01/14/2003 7:37:49 AM PST by Scott from the Left Coast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
Because war, or rather, impending war, is good for business. News print is sold. Knocking off this bastard would dry up the cash flow.

It's all about money, folks.

11 posted on 01/14/2003 8:59:13 AM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
You posted, What I don't understand is how a "liberal" minded media can support such a evil regime, slavery, torture, racism, and fascism!"

One of these days we will be able track the blood money that has gone from the Opecker Princes and the Islamofascists like Uncle Soddomite to buy the left wing mediots and politicians the past 2 decades.

When it comes to what might appear to be strange behavior coming from the lunatic left, we just have to identify the money they are getting and from whom the money is coming. Then, the mystery behaviors are no longer mysteries.

15 posted on 01/14/2003 9:48:05 AM PST by Grampa Dave (Support Free Republic. Become a monthly donor ! Taxcuts are for Taxpayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
Check out http://efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SpecialReportWaronIraq/SR2RisetoPower.htm for Saddam's Nazi influences.
18 posted on 01/14/2003 10:33:13 AM PST by efnwriter (http://efreedomnews.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
I was listening to Jim Bohanin tonight and found out that Saddam's Bath party supported the Nazis during WWII, does the sh### ever end??? And are the libs ever coherent???

No.

The public has been deceived into believing fascism comes from the right, where generally it comes from the left, as it did in Germany, Russia and Iraq.

Another modern myth is that the modern political divisions in America were born in the civil rights struggle of the sixties, as we heard ad nauseum during Trentlottgate. But that's not true, hardly anyone, Lott included, wants to turn back the clock on race relations. The division was precipitated by Vietnam, which spawned rioting in the streets during the 1968 Democratic Convention. By 1972 the antiwar liberals had seized control of the Democratic Party, which triggered the realignment of conservative Democrats and Jackson New Deal, pro-defense Democrats, to the Republican Party.

Since then, the Democrats and their media allies have advocated withdrawal from Vietnam, appeasement of the Soviet Union and Cuba, no defense against nuclear missles, support of communist insurgencies in Latin America, etc. Supporting Iraq isn't surprising for that bunch.

20 posted on 01/14/2003 10:53:06 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Porterville
The Libs are very coherent, destroying their political enemies is the #1 priority, the well being of the country is only relevant only if the Liberial 'anointed' is in charge. That why Bosnia is Ok but getting rid of the Taliban and Saddam is wrong.

BTW just as important as destroying Bush, undermining America is equally important.
22 posted on 01/14/2003 2:29:35 PM PST by Leto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson