I had fun on Blog Talk Radio this morning on the First Edition of A Newt One's Blogging in Hi Def Live.
One of the topics we covered is what liberals think about the Iraq War. I said on the program that liberals are not opposed to War in Iraq, per se, but simply because that war does not advance their agenda. That if Bush had said we are going to attack Iraq and we would sell the oil to fund Universal Health Care that no liberal would then be opposed to the war.
I would like to expand more on that thought here.
I believe liberals and leftists do not oppose war because they fear the loss of our soldiers' lives or hate violence or worry about innocent civilians being killed or because war is stupid. Let's think about this.
Leftists, liberals, defeatists, appeasers, whatever we call them, pretend to care about the loss of American lives in Iraq. But if they care so much about our soldiers and have so much compassion for them why does Code Pink picket VA hospitals with signs that mock their sacrifice with messages such as "why isn't war a war crime?" (1)
Is that showing compassion for the troops, telling men who have lost arms and legs that they have participated in a war crime? What kind of animals are these people?
Richard Belzer on the Bill Maher Show, disparaged our troops by saying they knew nothing of world events because they did not read newspapers as he did. In addition, he accused all of our troops of being in the military solely because they could not get a job elsewhere. This is how liberals think of our soldiers.
So if they're not really concerned about soldiers' lives why are they so opposed to the war? Simple, nothing in it for them. They oppose the war because American Corporations make money from it. If George Bush had packaged the War in Iraq by saying that he wanted Universal health care and the only way to fund it was to attack Iraq and unilaterally sell their oil, well, no liberal would be in the streets attacking the war or George Bush. They would be walking around with tee-shirts with silk-screened messages of what a humanitarian president we have. Atheists (and I am one) would be on MSNBC declaring, "God Bless George Bush!"
This applies as well to domestic spying. Leftists aren't worried about giving up their freedoms or having any of the Bill of Rights abrogated; hell they're willing to drop the Second Amendment today. No, they're opposed to the government spying on terrorists because there is nothing in it for them. If Bush declared that domestic spying on terror financial networks will allow the government to freeze those funds and then allocate those moneys to further Affirmative Action, no liberal would be railing against it. Indeed the New York Times would be praising the President for advancing their agenda, their pet projects.
So when conservatives try to convince libtards why they are wrong, it falls on deaf ears. When we are amazed at how stupid liberals are that they cannot understand why we are correct in our positions, we are looking at the problem all wrong. Our arguments no matter how cogent and well-crafted cannot have any affect on them because it has nothing to do with intelligence or lack of it. Wrong and right have nothing to do with liberal positions. It's all about what's in it for them. We will never be able to convince them to do what is right unless we get them to stop being whiny, greedy, self-righteous, self-serving whores.
Reminds me of a joke: a beautiful woman enters an elevator in a posh hotel and notices Donald Trump alone with her. She gushes, "Oh my god Mr Trump, I admire you so much I'm willing to give you oral sex right now in this elevator." Trump looks at this really attractive woman and says, "but what's in it for me?"
The Redhunter, 13 Nov 2005, Pinkos Update: Two More Nights at Walter Reed