Often I've noticed people on here claiming to be liberal while rejecting the liberal "no blood for oil" crowd. While many of you may be more moderate than your bretheren (and thats good!), there is still a large, vocal contingency of leftists who beleive these ridiculous mantras. Unfortunately (or fortunately for us Conservatives), they have proven to be the mouthpiece for the left. Don't believe in the "myth" of the neo-marxist left trying to sway politics in this country. Check out these videos, real world unmasking of the left:

http://protestwarrior.com/videos/eagle_strike.php

I especially like this infiltration:

http://protestwarrior.com/videos/ai_alans_commentary.php

Quote :

"I hate nuclear weapons too, but I know the only way we can get rid of them is when we have a world of free nations, or decent nations, of nations rid of socialist scum like A.N.S.W.E.R. "

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 12:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 12:12:05 PM

Haha, you're an idiot.

9/4/2006 12:16:21 PM

what the hell is all this

9/4/2006 12:16:24 PM

COMINTERN!

9/4/2006 12:16:47 PM

why dont you read it and see for yourself?

^^^that means a lot, coming from some 18 year old that knows nothing about the real world outside of your sad little high school and your fresh new dorm room and college classes.

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 12:17:10 PM

pushing a large boulder up a rather steep hill, dontcha think?

9/4/2006 12:18:58 PM

what needs to be done will be done

9/4/2006 12:20:40 PM

*shakes head*

alright, enjoy your short stay.

9/4/2006 12:21:18 PM

yeah, i guess you people and your "cause of the people" cant be stopped, huh?

i mean, im assuming your defending these groups. if you arent, speak up.

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 12:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 12:22:16 PM

i'm a conservative, no bones about that.


but i know a losing battle when i see it.

9/4/2006 12:23:54 PM

maybe you should learn more about these people and get rid of your defeatist attitude.

9/4/2006 12:25:12 PM

picking your battles and choosing your arenas wisely *isnt* a defeatist attitude.

9/4/2006 12:26:17 PM

and why do you choose not to counter a vile threat such as this? just challenging your attitudes here to hopefully open your eyes to the threat. it ranges from these folks, to the supposed "next president of the united states", Hillary.

9/4/2006 12:27:23 PM

i can't counter a vile threat by posting on a message board and arguing with leftwing (and apparentely rightwing) idealogues.

9/4/2006 12:29:54 PM

Inform yourself

Inform others

Know the enemy

Be ready to counter them at the polls, in the classroom, on the streets, whereever you might encounter them.

John Kerry says we are "terrorizing" over in Iraq. How is that different from these fools labeling us and Israel as "terrorists" in the Middle East?

9/4/2006 12:35:55 PM

differentiate between the opposition and the enemy

the opposition is the left

the enemy is misinformation... on both sides.

9/4/2006 12:37:37 PM

^yes

we are looking to counter that, look at the site.

9/4/2006 12:38:20 PM

well, if we dont have any communists groups that i know of running around raleigh, do you really think its that great a threat? Or is raleigh a bad representation?

9/4/2006 12:39:34 PM

Quote :

"well, if we dont have any communists groups that i know of running around raleigh, do you really think its that great a threat?"

I think its because there is a difference in definition
Not many people label themselves as "communists" and we in the right throw that label onto more people than actually fit the definition of "communists."

For instance, people who are pro-capitalist (like many on the right and libertarians) use the term communism to address any kind of movement that we feel inches toward market restraint of some kind that could be a small step towards socialism.

Communist is easier to say than the whole "movement that we feel inches toward market restraint of some kind that could be a small step towards socialism" thing.

9/4/2006 1:06:27 PM

^and that crisis in semantics is the bane of my existance

9/4/2006 1:10:20 PM

lol, I'm sure it bothers the hell out of you

You know, like when people label anyone with a belief in Christ a "right-wing Jesus-freak"

9/4/2006 1:14:05 PM

hot chicks everywhere?

9/4/2006 1:15:04 PM

I love how all of us on the left fighting for a better america are expected to stand up and say that we don't like socialist despots.

Maybe I'll start answering for left wing autocrats when the right does the same thing.

9/4/2006 2:10:44 PM

leftist hero hugo chavez, backed by most of the left in this country, mentioned last week that mao was one of his idols.

9/4/2006 2:23:04 PM

9/4/2006 2:24:22 PM

and what has he done in his country that should get the left riled up?

I list John Wilmot as one of my heroes, does that mean every person on the left should explain why?

And lets look at this "No blood for oil" mantra.

The first gulf war, oil, the united states supporting the shah and reinstating him into power, oil, the us funding a coup attempt against Chavez, oil.

You act as if there is no validity to the "No blood for oil" mantra when history proves you wrong.

9/4/2006 2:26:27 PM

foolish child

^the us funding the shah was primarily a measure to counter ussr hedgemony in the region. where is the evidence of the us funding a coup against chavez? youre buying into his own propaganda.

your crediblity=zero. good day sir!

[Edited on September 4, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/4/2006 2:26:40 PM

Here is evidence for the US supporting the coup

we sure did recognize the new government very quickly

and restoring the shah to power had nothing to do with the USSR. It had to do with business interests in the area and those business interests were oil

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

9/4/2006 2:31:27 PM

oh, so some anti-communist members of the administration support a coup against someone allied w/ castro and other leftist organizations who wish to deny our attempts to make a better western hemisphere through free trade and the like and suddenly its "for oil"? i personally support the reagan doctrine, and it has nothing to do with "war for oil". youre a joke.

nice spin from across the pond there as well.

9/4/2006 2:36:32 PM

and what pray tell is the commodity in question in Venezuela?

Sweet Sweet Crude

Jesus Christ you are numb

why don't you attempt to refute why we led a coup in Iran and I bet you'll attempt to make a statement without mentioning the Anglo-Iranian oil company, which would be dishonest

Why don't you attempt to refute Gulf War I being over oil

if a well respected newspaper isn't good enough, how about CNN

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/16/US.Venezuela/

the US met with the leaders of the coup before it happened. I wonder why.

9/4/2006 2:45:11 PM

I've already stated why we backed the Shah and many other leaders of the time, to fight USSR hedgemony worldwide. It was our stated goal to back pro-capitalist, anti-communist leaders, and the Shah was one.

I for one applaud our efforts to assure a world more friendly to our anti-communist, anti-terrorist, pro-free trade, pro-capitalist values.

9/4/2006 3:02:19 PM

hey, remember the 80's?

it went something like this:

http://reaganbushwangchungtonight.ytmnd.com/

9/4/2006 3:28:28 PM

Salisburyboy has a boyfriend.

9/4/2006 3:45:15 PM

that makes sense

oh wait, just noticed who said that. you have absolutely zero credibility, always have, always will.

9/4/2006 3:47:11 PM

I find it amusing how you commonly blur Socialism and Communism.

9/4/2006 3:54:45 PM

Quote :

"I've already stated why we backed the Shah and many other leaders of the time, to fight USSR hedgemony worldwide. It was our stated goal to back pro-capitalist, anti-communist leaders, and the Shah was one. I for one applaud our efforts to assure a world more friendly to our anti-communist, anti-terrorist, pro-free trade, pro-capitalist values."

Osama bin Laden agrees. We helped him help us make the world safer from communists.

9/4/2006 4:06:47 PM

^^both derive from the same priciples, and while they dont explicitly state it, they both have proven over time to be proponents of masive statism.

9/4/2006 4:38:22 PM

typical nonsense from an ill informed dumbass

9/4/2006 4:48:05 PM

sorry, but im not denying the 100 years of history that has proven to us that statism and socialist/communism fails and kills.

9/5/2006 12:46:43 AM

you forgot about Facism

9/5/2006 1:46:08 AM

^^You are cherry picking here

just as many rightist regimes have been bloody.

9/5/2006 8:28:58 AM

^ Rightist regimes? You mean Fascist regimes?

Both Fascism and Communism deny the individual.

Fascism exposes government control of the economy, Communism exposes government ownership of the economy.

I admit there is a difference between them, sure enough, but liberty based economies are not a cross between the two.

9/5/2006 8:58:56 AM

no, I mean rightist

9/5/2006 10:42:16 AM

^^thats right

facists, communists, socialists...theyre all statists.

9/5/2006 11:04:51 AM

Pinochet was not a fascist

He was a rightist.

9/5/2006 12:21:51 PM

and an anti-communist

9/5/2006 12:38:26 PM

^^ I don't think everyone falls on a scale which goes from leftist on the left and rightists on the right.
Communists (Leftists) use the force of Government to gain ownership over the economy while also using force to control what people think (Stalin arrested and killed the political opposition).
Fascists use the force of Government to control the economy while also using force to control what people think (Hitler arrested and killed the political opposition).
Rightists evidently refuse to use the force of Government to control the economy but have no qualms about using it to control what people think (Pinochet arrested and killed the political opposition).

Yet somehow I am expected to believe if I force Pinochet and Stalin in a room to plan a nation they are going to come out and neither control the economy or what people think (usually by killing the opposition)?

Fuck no. There is one scale, sure enough, but it is NOT leftist/rightist. It is statist/liberal. On one side are those that believe the force of Government should be used to make people better, using force to either organize the economy or alter what people think. On the other side are those that believe Individuals should be free to plan their own economic and political lives.

This places Stalin, Hitler, Madison, and Pinochet on the statist side and Washington, Jefferson, Friedman, and Greenspan on the liberal side (the liberal side is rather lonely when it comes to historical figures).

9/5/2006 1:01:49 PM

liberal isn't lonely at all.

9/5/2006 1:25:04 PM

perhaps I should have said "20th century historical figures"

Not one was in political control of a country throughout the bulk of the 20th century.

9/5/2006 2:11:53 PM

well seeing how woman, blacks and native americans have all gained a huge amount of personal rights and causes some as enviromentalism and accountablity of corporations have become issues would state that they have had an impact in the USA.

and I just reread your statement and it really doesnt make sense.



[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 3:11 PM. Reason : !]

9/5/2006 3:09:59 PM