• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Serious Discussion on the Treatment of Liberals on These Forums

Flip said:
Eric Margolis sticks out as a very bright liberal, I guess that's why I get so mad at him.

Actually, I read somewhere that Eric Margolis is a paleo-conservative.  I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it explains his anti-Israeli positions.  Before I read that, I thought he was a flaming Marxist!

Having listened to him "debate" with someone on the radio once, he is definitely an arrogant pompous ***!

EDIT: for spelling
 
This pretty much sums my disdain of the "Left" specifically in regards to military matters as it applies to both the current Liberal and NDP parties:

Betrayed
By Amir Taheri
The New York Post | April 11, 2007

While elements of the Left in the United States and Europe are calling on Western democracies to abandon Afghanistan and Iraq to the Taliban and al Qaeda and surrender to the Khomeinists in Iran, new alliances are emerging against the jihadists in the region.

In much of the Middle East, most notably Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left is part of these new alliances.

* In Iraq, two rival Communist parties, along with Social Democrats and other center-left groups, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and continue to play a significant role in the new pluralist system. They are resolutely opposed to a premature withdrawal of American and allied forces, as demanded by the U.S. Congress.

* In Lebanon, Walid Jumblatt's Progressive Socialist Party is at the heart of the democratic movement to against the Islamic Republic's attempt to dominate the country through its Hezbollah surrogates. The Lebanese democratic movement includes other parties of the Left, notably the Socialist Salvation Movement (Inqadh) and the Movement of the Democratic Left.

* In Iran, virtually the whole of the Left rejects President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Americanism and calls for normalization of ties with the United States. The recently created independent trade-union movement is emerging as a vocal challenger to Khomeinism.

Perhaps the most interest ing new anti-jihadist alli ance, however, is taking shape in Afghanistan. After months of discussions the leaders of several parties that had fought each other for two decades have come together to set up a new alliance called Popular Front (Jibheh Melli).

One major figure in the group is Burhaneddin Rabbani - an Islamic scholar who served as Afghanistan's president after the Communist regime's collapse in 1992. As founder and leader of Jami'at Islami (Islamic Society), Rabbani was one of the first Afghan leaders who started the resistance movement against Soviet occupation. Yet Rabbani has agreed to enter the Popular Front along with leaders of Afghanistan's dissolved Communist Party.

Both rival wings of the Communist Party will be present in the new front. One wing, known as Parcham (The Banner) had always been pro-Soviet; the other, known as Shoeleh-Javid (Eternal Flame), had Maoist sentiments.

The new front will also include center-left figures such as Nuralhaq Olumi and Muhammad Gulabzvi, along with anti-Soviet mujahedin commanders such as Gen. Muhammad Qassim Fahim, a former defense minister.

Before the U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, much of the Middle Eastern Left shared the views of its U.S. and European counterparts with regard to America.

"We looked to the Left in the West and imitated it," says Awad Nasir, one of Iraq's best-known poets and a life-long Communist. "We heard from the United States and Western Europe that being Left meant being anti-American. So we were anti-American. And then we saw Americans coming from the other side of the world to save us from Saddam Hussein - something that our leftist friends and the Soviet Union would never contemplate."

Mustafa Kazemi, spokesman for the new Afghan front, expresses similar sentiments. "Our nation is still facing the menace of obscurantism and terror from Taliban and al Qaeda," he says. "Thus, we are surprised when elements of the Left in the United States and Europe campaign for withdrawal so that our new democracy is left defenseless against its enemies."

Iraq's parties of the Left were shocked when the new So cialist government in Spain decided to withdraw from the U.S.-led coalition in 2004. "We had hoped that with a party of the Left in power in Madrid we would get more support against the Islamofascists, not a withdrawal," says Aziz al-Haj, the veteran Iraqi communist leader.

Tareq al-Hashemi, vice president of Iraq, has also gambled his impeccable progressive record on the success of the pluralist experiment in his country. "Our enemy is al Qaeda, not the United States," he says.


Jumblatt, the Lebanese leader, says he realized that his life-long anti-Americanism had been misplaced when he saw "long lines of people, waiting to vote in Iraq, in the first free election in an Arab country."

Samir Qassir, a Lebanese center-left leader murdered by the Syrians, often spoke of anti-Americanism as "the last refuge of the scoundrel" in the Middle East. "Politics is always a question of choice," Qassir said in one of his last articles. "Here in the Middle East, we face a choice between democracy and alliance with the United States on one hand and surrender to religious fanatics and terrorists on the other."

Skimming through the Mid dle Eastern press these days can produce unexpected results. It's not rare to see a virulently anti-American article by an American or Western European leftist - and, alongside it on the same page, a pro-American article from an Arab, Iranian or Afghan progressive figure.

In Iran, for example, Hussein Shariatmadari - the ultra-Islamist editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a theoretician of the extreme right - often admiringly cites such American leftist figures as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Jane Fonda.

Having all but abandoned its traditional opposition to capitalism and the bourgeois democratic system, much of the Western Left is forced to cling to anti-Americanism as its backbone.


To be sure, anti-Americanism is not the ailment of the Western Left alone. Extreme-right parties are also vehemently anti-American. Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the French neofascist National Front, is as opposed to the new democratic Iraq as Spain's Socialist Premier Jose Luis Zapatero.

In the Middle East, however, a good part of the Left, while not especially enamored of the United States, sees it as an ally against Islamist and totalitarian pan-Arab movements.

"Anti-Americanism is a luxury we cannot afford in the Middle East," says Adnan Hussein, a leftist Iraq writer recently picked by the Financial Times as one of the 50 most influential columnists in the world. "Blinded by anti-Americanism, the Left in the West ends up on the same side as religious fascists and despots."

Parviz Khosravi, a veteran of Iran's Communist movement, cites history as justification for the Left's rejection of "banal anti-Americanism."

"During the Second World War, all movements of the Left supported an alliance with the Western democracies led by the United States because the common enemy was Fascism," he says. "Today, we are in a similar position. Progressive forces in the Middle East are threatened by an Islamist version of Fascism. An alliance with Western democracies is not only desirable but necessary."

President Bush, the bete noire of liberals and leftists in the West, might be surprised to learn that he has a better image among liberals, leftists, secularists and even moderate Islamists in the Middle East.

While Chomsky and Moore see the United States as "an evil power," many leftists in the Middle East see it as a force for good that ended the tyranny of the Taliban in Afghanistan, dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and forced the Syrians out of Lebanon after 30 years of occupation.

"In our region, the United States has become a force for the good," says Jumblatt, who recently met President Bush at the White House for a surprise meeting.


Copyright 2007 New York Post
 
If I double posted I apologize
A passage from the same author, Amir Taheri:
WHEN THE ENEMY OF YOUR ENEMY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND
by Amir Taheri
Asharq Alawsat
April 20, 2007
After the Spartacist revolt in Berlin, the German bourgeoisie rushed into financing the most extremist of he right-wing parties as a means of preventing a Communist revolution.

Eventually the Nazi Party was formed to do the job with the money provided by leading German financiers, some of them Jewish. A decade later, "the enemy of my enemy" was destroying the German bourgeoisie and planning the Holocaust against the Jews.
 
We've had this debate in the past in regards to other parties & specific politicians. It prompted this:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

RangerRay said:
My read:

Personal attacks on individual posters - not ok

Attacks on collectives (Liberal/Tory/NDP supporters in general) - ok

Mods, am I wrong here?
You are wrong.  Ad hominem against individuals or organizations is equally frowned on.  Attacks for the sake of attacks do nothing for conversation (regardless if the target is an individual or a group).  Finally, an individual or an organizations could choose to cause legal troubles for a perception of liable.
 
If you're talking about different viewpoints, fine.  Make a point and be prepared to defend it, there's a lot of different perspectives even on a military board.

However, if we're talking about the Liberal Party of Canada that's a different matter.  As an Albertan old enough to remember the National Energy Program, that's about all I need to know about that party.  To put it plainly, one of my biggest motivations to visit Montreal would be to piss on the sign at the airport.  [Keep in mind, though, I only voted for Ralph Klein once (his second mandate) so I'm not a do or die conservative by any means.] 

As well, I think the sentiment around setting up the Charter was admirable but the fallout as it affects our justice system with the criminal's rights trumping all other concerns then there's something seriously wrong.

Since the 1980s, the Libs have become the party of corruption, waste, [gun registry, anyone?] and Orwellian political correctness.  Their lack of fortitude when dealing with terrorism and justice issues with their reluctance to classify the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations, as well as looking the other way when dealing with the activities of certain members of the Sikh community shows that hanging onto power is all-important with them. 

Personally, given the actions of that party over the last few decades, anyone wearing the uniform of the CF or those who claim to support those who do and yet still maintain allegiance to the Liberal Party of Canada will have to do some soul-searching because I don't think one can do both as the military ethos is an anathema to being a Liberal
 
I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.
 
MG34 said:
I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.

That's very clever how you called them Lieberals, it sort of invalidates your entire argument when you resort to petty name calling. I'd really like to see some evidence of how this country is in shambles, I didn't realize being in the top 10 in HDI and plenty other world categories constitutes shambles. Like I've said before this forum doesn't excludes people who aren't conservative and they don't deserve to be insulted either.
 
Gimby
I see on almost every leftwing site where Harper is called "Pee Wee", Neo-Harper, anyone not presenting the correct opinion is called a neo-con at the nicest and far worst if you persit in your deviant opinion. The Liberals earned the label "lieberal" with their consistent inability to be truthful. Now I will be the first to admit that given enough time, the CPC will become very similar, hence the reason democracy has organized revolutions periodical. Without the pain of a humiliating defeat the Liberals will not be able to rebuild and clean house. I would like to see for the time being a CPC majority facing a strong, well thought out opposition that keeps the government honest. Currently the Liberals have failed to be an effective government and now they are failing at their new task and their duty to Canada.
 
Colin P said:
Gimby
I see on almost every leftwing site where Harper is called "Pee Wee", Neo-Harper, anyone not presenting the correct opinion is called a neo-con at the nicest and far worst if you persit in your deviant opinion. The Liberals earned the label "lieberal" with their consistent inability to be truthful. Now I will be the first to admit that given enough time, the CPC will become very similar, hence the reason democracy has organized revolutions periodical. Without the pain of a humiliating defeat the Liberals will not be able to rebuild and clean house. I would like to see for the time being a CPC majority facing a strong, well thought out opposition that keeps the government honest. Currently the Liberals have failed to be an effective government and now they are failing at their new task and their duty to Canada.

I agree with the fact that right now the Liberals are ineffective and not as good as they could be, I've never stated otherwise and I've never shown my support for Dion because I really don't care for him that much at all. (I voted for Ignatieff in the leadership race). But I want to wait until the next election, when they will probably lose unless something monumental happens, to get some better MP's hopefully and maybe then their will be better opposition which can stimulate the government even further.
 
Gimpy:

While I have some sympathy with your desire to be treated respectfully, consider this:

I don't go to Liberal sites, attempting to convert them to my point of view.  I would be foolhardy, achieve nothing, and I would expect to be treated fairly roughly.  For that matter, I rarely engage in political discussion at ALL (virtually or in "the real world"), unless it is in regard to a specific issue which needs to be discussed and resolved (usually local issues).  I usually limit my involvement in national level politics to correspondence with MPs and Ministers. 

It's simply not worth attempting to change an individual's political mindset.  In fact, I find the practice of attempting to change an individual's politics similar to religious proselytizing - a practice I will not tolerate being subjected to.  Any religious missionary showing up at my door is politely, but firmly turned away - as is any Liberal, NDPer, Communist, Green Partier, amongst others.

I think Colin P has it right - the CPC will eventually become "the establishment", get too comfortable, and will be turfed in an "organized revolution" some time in the future.  By the time that I happens - I will probably be as disgusted with them as I currently am with the Liberals.

It remains, however, that I am a small "c" conservative in thought and belief - you will not change that through strident whining on an internet forum populated, generally, by people of similar mindset to mine.

Roy
 
Gimpy said:
I agree with the fact that right now the Liberals are ineffective and not as good as they could be, I've never stated otherwise and I've never shown my support for Dion because I really don't care for him that much at all. (I voted for Ignatieff in the leadership race). But I want to wait until the next election, when they will probably lose unless something monumental happens, to get some better MP's hopefully and maybe then their will be better opposition which can stimulate the government even further.

You probably won't find many here that will disagree with your statements in your last post. Most here recognize what the liberals have done, are doing, and where they are probably going for the next few years....the Liberals problem has been that they have not been doing it with any grace whatsoever.....they are just imploding, and it's ugly.
 
Roy Harding said:
Gimpy:

While I have some sympathy with your desire to be treated respectfully, consider this:

I don't go to Liberal sites, attempting to convert them to my point of view.  I would be foolhardy, achieve nothing, and I would expect to be treated fairly roughly.  For that matter, I rarely engage in political discussion at ALL (virtually or in "the real world"), unless it is in regard to a specific issue which needs to be discussed and resolved (usually local issues).  I usually limit my involvement in national level politics to correspondence with MPs and Ministers. 

It's simply not worth attempting to change an individual's political mindset.  In fact, I find the practice of attempting to change an individual's politics similar to religious proselytizing - a practice I will not tolerate being subjected to.  Any religious missionary showing up at my door is politely, but firmly turned away - as is any Liberal, NDPer, Communist, Green Partier, amongst others.

I think Colin P has it right - the CPC will eventually become "the establishment", get too comfortable, and will be turfed in an "organized revolution" some time in the future.  By the time that I happens - I will probably be as disgusted with them as I currently am with the Liberals.

It remains, however, that I am a small "c" conservative in thought and belief - you will not change that through strident whining on an internet forum populated, generally, by people of similar mindset to mine.

Roy

I haven't posted anywhere here that I want to change anyone to a Liberal or anything of the sort. I'd just like to see some of the backhanded insults stop or whenever there is a political topic it most always diverges into "LOL Liberals are stupid" and so on.
 
Gimpy said:
I haven't posted anywhere here that I want to change anyone to a Liberal or anything of the sort. I'd just like to see some of the backhanded insults stop or whenever there is a political topic it most always diverges into "LOL Liberals are stupid" and so on.

Stop defending yourself, Gimpy.  I didn't attack you.  As I said earlier - I agree that the mud-slinging is not conducive to an intelligent discourse.  I ALSO think that you are being treated more decently here, than I would be on most "left-slanted" internet discussion forums.

Roy
 
Gimpy said:
I am intotal agreement with the statem,ents that Lieberal supports are sheep, or have their heads stuck in the sand or up their you know what. Years of liberal mismanagement have left this country in shambles,and teh Cf in worse shape. Frankly any lieberal who comes onto this forum deserves what they get, and it sure as hell won't be sympathy.
That's very clever how you called them Lieberals,

Wow, that's the only typo you found? ;D

Mind you, he actually misspelled it 2 of 3 times used; did he misspell it correctly one time...or was it intentional to throw you off track? Is this just another cunning plan within the vast neo-Con conspiracy?  :-\
 
Back
Top