The Liberals’ Creed

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
We believe in the United Nations, and Kofi Annan, the maker of international legitimacy.

We believe that the UN inspections worked.
We believe that SCUD missiles fired at U.S. troops minutes after the war began don’t change anything;
We believe that 3 liters of sarin gas used against U.S. troops doesn’t change anything;
We believe that finding evidence of mustard gas doesn’t change anything.

We believe that the war in Iraq conducted by a Republican president was unjustified because it lacked UN approval;
We believe that the "military action" in Kosovo conducted by a Democratic president was justified without UN approval.

We believe that the Iraq war was unilateral.
We believe that the participation of Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine does not change the fact that the war was unilateral;
We believe that multilateralism can only be achieved with the participation of France and Germany;
We believe in multilateralism.

We believe that this war was motivated by greed and oil;
We believe that when France, Germany, and Russia opposed the war, they were motivated by principle, and not by sweetheart oil deals or Oil-For-Food kickbacks;
We believe that US oil prices are too high, and that the administration failed in its responsibility to do something about it.

We believe that the U.S. may only legitimately use force for humanitarian ends in one place if it does so in all places where aid might be needed;
We believe that the U.S. may not quell threats in places where the cost is relatively low unless it is willing to use force in places like North Korea, where the cost in lives would likely be very high;
We believe that a humanitarian action is only truly humanitarian if there are no strategic interests to muddle the altruism.

We believe that President Bush lied.
We believe that Prime Minister Blair lied.
We believe that when Hillary Clinton and Dick Gephardt voted for the war based on the same intelligence relied upon by Bush and Blair, they made reasonable decisions based on the intelligence available at the time.

We believe that the administration did not make the case for war;
We believe that the administration offered many different reasons but could not offer a coherent message explaining the need to go to war;
We believe that the administration made perfectly clear that the only reason we were going to war was because of the threat from WMDs.

We believe that there were no WMDs.
We believe that finding sarin gas is 14th page news;
We believe that if the sarin gas is old, then it really isn’t a WMD we were looking for;
We believe that it wasn’t really sarin gas;
We believe that sarin gas isn’t necessarily a WMD.

We believe that there was no terrorist connection to, or threat from, Iraq.
We believe that members of Abu Nidal in Iraq would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would not have committed terrorist acts if we had not invaded;
We believe that Saddam’s terrorist training camp at Salman Pak—complete with a Boeing 707 plane used for hijacking drills—did not exist or posed no real threat;
We believe that it was merely a coincidence that the pharmaceutical factory bombed by President Clinton in Sudan was using al Qaeda funds and a uniquely Iraqi formula to produce VX gas;
We believe that we are responsible for bringing terror on ourselves.

We believe that the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib is widespread and is probably the tip of the iceberg;
We believe that Abu Ghraib proves that the America’s occupation is no different than Saddam’s tyranny;
We believe that any attempt to suggest that there is a moral difference between a regime which systematically killed 300,000 people and tortured countless others and a regime which punished the acts of Abu Ghraib is illegitimate.

We believe that soldiers deliberately target women and children;
We believe that the soldiers abuse and kill Iraqis because they are racists;
We support our troops.

We believe that no one should question our statement that we "support our troops;"
We believe that the best thing that could happen for this country would be for Bush to lose in November;
We believe that the best way for Bush to lose in November is for the Iraq effort to go poorly, even if that means that more Iraqis and troops will die;
We believe that most of the troops are minorities and the poor;
We believe that when the word "heroes" is used to describe our troops, it should always be enclosed in scare quotes.

We believe in quagmire.
We believe that when fringe Iraqi groups attack hard targets and are soundly defeated with relatively low Coalition casualties, that this is inescapable evidence of crisis;
We believe that Iraq is Bush’s Vietnam.

We believe that Vietnam is the lens through which all wars should be viewed.
We believe that soldiers in Vietnam were baby killers;
We believe that John Kerry is a hero for his service in Vietnam.

We believe that because John Kerry is a hero, he necessarily has the national security expertise necessary to be commander-in-chief.
We believe that any attempt to question his national security expertise based on his voting record, including his decision to vote against a supplemental bill used to buy the soldiers body armor, is an unfair attack on the patriotism of a hero, who by virtue of this honorific has the expertise to be commander-in-chief.

We believe in the trinity: NPR, CNN, and the New York Times. We believe in Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and all the DNC, and we look for President Clinton yet to come. Amen.

Ashbrook Center

No wonder there is so much confusion.
 

ResearchMonkey

Well-Known Member
BeardofPants said:
Conservatives: We believed George Bush. :retard:

Close but . . .

Its more like:

We believe in right and wrong.

We believe theres more black and white and far less grey.

We do not fear morality.

We do not fear standing up for what is right.

We believe facts mean something and are a good basis for making decisions.

We believe in making decisions before the action with out benefits of cartoons after the fact.
 

BeardofPants

New Member
ResearchMonkey said:
Close but . . .
We believe in right and wrong.

From whose perspective?

We believe theres more black and white and far less grey.

Well, that's just silly. You can't say that one party is completely 'good', and one party is completely 'bad', now can you?

We do not fear morality.

You suppose that liberals do? Or that conservatives are the only ones concerned with values/morals/codes of ethics?

We do not fear standing up for what is right.

Again, is that just a conservative attribute?

We believe facts mean something and are a good basis for making decisions.

Um, ditto?

We believe in making decisions before the action with out benefits of cartoons after the fact.

Say what?


Lovely lil' sweeping generalisations by the way. Should I make some of my own, my little gonzlette? :rolleyes:
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
BeardofPants said:
From whose perspective?

Depends upon the speaker. :shrug: Right and wrong, while not entirely absolute, are generally absolute. :retard:


BeardofPants said:
Lovely lil' sweeping generalisations by the way. Should I make some of my own, my little gonzlette? :rolleyes:

As liberals like to say...If it feels good, do it... :lol:
 

samcurry

Screwing with the code...
Staff member
hmmm. ive heard no "thats not correct" or "hogwash" on any of the first creed. Is that meaning its true, or that most people are truly not "one party" they believe in ideas from both sides.
It is a scary day when no one stands up and says that atleast some of it is wrong. Unfortunately all we have to do is look up on the net and find most if not all of it is true and many are brainwashed from the time they are born to be either DEM or REP and have no real idea what their party really stands for.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
I was raised pretty much as a Dem.
Then I was Rep mostly starting at voting age.
It seem somewhere between the Ford, and Regan admins,
the parties flip-flopped. :confused:
At one time there I didn't even see a 'real' difference between them.
I'm now 'no' party. I vote for who ever I think is the best candidate.
Hell, I may vote for Nader this time around. (I did for for Ross P. when he ran)
 

samcurry

Screwing with the code...
Staff member
thats great cat, i wish more people were that way. this straight ticket stuff is just nuts. You gotta see both sides and determine if any one on the tickets are worthy of your vote. Unfortunately when it comes to the pres down you can only choose one party, wouldnt it be great if we could choose them all seperately?
 

chcr

Too cute for words
samcurry said:
thats great cat, i wish more people were that way. this straight ticket stuff is just nuts. You gotta see both sides and determine if any one on the tickets are worthy of your vote. Unfortunately when it comes to the pres down you can only choose one party, wouldnt it be great if we could choose them all seperately?
I want a "none of the above" category too. :grinyes:

Especially this time. :D
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
BeardofPants said:
Conservatives: We believed George Bush. :retard:

Why the past tense? I still beleive him. Proof all over the place and a large case of voluntary blindness.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
BeardofPants said:
From whose perspective?

This is why the terrorists keep calling CNN.

BeardofPants said:
Well, that's just silly. You can't say that one party is completely 'good', and one party is completely 'bad', now can you?

Joe Lieberman & Zell Miller prove there can be decent Dems. Too bad their own party hates them.

BeardofPants said:
Or that conservatives are the only ones concerned with values/morals/codes of ethics?
Yes.
 

markjs

Banned
Republican Creedo:

We believe in forcing our beliefs on all of you, you will believe our christianity and you will pray in school in a prescribed manner.

We believe in stealing from the poor to give to the rich, the corporation is king and all things must serve it.

We believe in abolishing minimum wage, workers deserve no protection or rights!

We believe in cheating if we are about to lose. We rezone legislative districts to serve us, we spy on the democrats illegally and we see to it that our good old boy network halts any fair recounting of votes.

We believe in attacking countries we disagree with and making up false justifications for doing so.

We believe in ignoring good science and placing econmic goals above and beyond environmental concerns in every circumstance.

We believe in having control of womens reproductive rights, they are only women after all.

We believe in offering no protections for minorities. Let em work for peanuts.

We believe in ignoring science and teaching children creationism because it keeps people in line.

We believe in throwing out public schools, only those who can pay deserve an education.

We believe healthcare is nothing more than a business. If you can't afford it you don't deserve it.

We believe in weakening the constitution by allowing illegal search and seizure in the name of keeping us safe from terror.

I could go on ad nauseum, but I won't....suffice to say there is a lot wrong with both parties, and most reasonable people will find themselves closer to the middle. Personally I think the Far right is far more dangerous than the left though.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
so close on these. Try again

We believe in abolishing minimum wage

We believe in offering no protections

We believe in throwing out public schools

We believe healthcare is nothing more than a business.
 

Larner

New Member
Gotta agree, MJS, although I must point out you wrote "proscribe" when you meant "prescribe." To proscribe means to ban, while to prescribe is to direct what behavior is to be followed.

As for the dismissal of all who disagree with the current administration as cranks and left-wing radicals, and to suggest that we see the UN and its current leaders as infallible--that is oversimplification at its worst. Moderates as well as liberals find the current administration to be beyond the pale, and I, personally, am getting sick and tired of being lied to by Bush and his coterie.

Even the President has admitted that no proof has ever been shown that Iraq had anything to do with the 9-11 assaults, nor that they had sufficient weapons of mass destruction (a term that this administration has seemed to think is only appropriate for Iraq while ignoring far more viable threats to our safety and world peace elsewhere in the world) to be of any threat to us at the time we invaded their territory. Yet, these were the rationales given for invading Iraq. If Iraq was incapable of causing significant harm to our invading forces, then what justification did the administration have for informing us before the invasion that they could cause our nation significant harm within a forty-five minute period by launching their much-vaunted (by the administration) but to this day undiscovered WMDs at our heartland?

When the administration lies to us about such important issues, I think it's long past time to insist it explain itself or admit the lie and resign.
 

markjs

Banned
Larner said:
Gotta agree, MJS, although I must point out you wrote "proscribe" when you meant "prescribe." To proscribe means to ban, while to prescribe is to direct what behavior is to be followed.


OK I edited it, and yes she (Larner) really is my mom. Watch it, she is a teacher and can correct your grammar with the best of them.
 
Top