http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... kill/full/

Should President Barack Obama continue his escalation of the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will be the liberal thing to do.

What too few Americans realize—especially the president’s anti-war supporters, who accuse him of betraying liberal or "progressive" values—is that if he accedes to General Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops in Afghanistan and intensifies the drone attacks in Pakistan, he will follow squarely in the footsteps of the great liberal statesmen he has cited as his role models.


Fascinating short overview of why liberals feel they must kill to promote their beliefs. Why 'they' must become like 'us' at gunpoint. It explains why Obama will promote more war following a rich liberal tradition dating back about 100 years.

He forgot to mention how L.B.J. a New Deal Democrat picked up the flag and expaned the war beyond all recognition.

If you remember, L.B.J. campaigned as the peace candidate.

Liberals kill for the same reason that conservatives kill... because someone has to run the empire.

I guess so.

It's just that they go at war with such gusto. And each time claim to be about peace. It's not only their lust for blood, but the lying about it I find so repulsive.

Answer: Just dig up Stalin and ask him.

Woodrow Wilson ran I think on keeping the US neutral in WWI. Violated that.

New Russian leadership though, pulled Russia out.

Kind of sucks when the commies can keep a promise better than our leaders, but then again, our leaders have an unfortunate history of lying, going back to reneging on all the Indian treaties.

Liberal and conservative. Two pointless labels. Like arguing over the difference between purple and violet.

I didn't vote in 2008 and I'm not feeling stupid about anything right now.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Straw-Dogs-Thou ... 1862075964

Try this.

I darn near didn't vote because at first I couldn't find a presidential candidate who wasn't in favor of more wars. Finally found one.... I think he received about .1% meaning 99.9% chose more war. I voted for peace anyhow so I feel ok about it. I just wish I could have convinced others to choose peace.

The root of the problem is not political.

What is it oh wise one?

Not voting is the only ethical choice. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

I didn't vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't believe I voted for evil at all, even though 99.9% of American voters clearly did. I voted for a candidate promising to quickly end the idiotic wars. And he garnered about a tenth of a percent of the vote. War sells. Peace doesn't. Liberals and conservatives both love war. But I'll never accept it and will constantly point out the madness of this evil.

What I find so repulsive is that we continue to fall for it every 4 years. No matter how many times Lucy yanks the football away at the last second... maybe this time she won't.

And that doesn't just apply to the Liberals and peace. How many people base their vote solely (soully?) on striking down Roe vs Wade? How's that working out?

The Left/Right paradigm is the biggest scam since the war on drugs or the free market: 2 factions of the same gang. It's nothing other than a distraction and a poor excuse for why you're getting screwed.

They advertise candidates just like they sell us any other product. Every 4 years we're forced to choose between Coke and Pepsi and we call it democracy. I was so pissed when Kucinich wasn't even invited to the debates. So I vote for Nader whenever he makes it on the ballot (which should tell you something about his chances). Throwing away my vote? Probably - but like you said, at least I'm not voting for evil.

I'm just happy those unverifiable, paperless, electronic voting machines make the whole process so quick and easy

I like the elections every four years. The candidates all say such great things and make such wonderful promises. Its great entertainment.



Its all the crap during the four years between the elections I can't stand.