I try to be a reasonable, rational person, albeit strongly opinionated at times. But, I have had enough of liberal, moderate, centrist, progressive hair splitting. If you wholeheartedly support the troops, then you have an obligation to support the mission. If you say to a soldier, "I respect your service, but do not support the war you are fighting," what have you done to that soldier's morale?
Hand him a rifle, teach him how to use it, pat him on the back, and then tell him you want him to lose. If you don't support the war, you do not support victory. If you don't support victory, you must be advocating defeat. Undermining military morale provides aid and comfort to the enemy, which is treason. Period. Treason is a crime. Period.

http://military-space.org we need more volunteers for penpals for the troops! Please, even by adopting one troop over there, you'll make a difference. I see we have new recruits, at least on the forum. I'm glad to share the same views as you guys about this stuff.

I have been telling liberals for years now that saying "I support the troops but not their mission" is a boldfaced lie.  If you don't support what you have sent them to do, then you are not supporting the troops.  

They take great exception to the fact I point out they are liars.  I have been called any number of names; but I stand my ground.  I have lived with a son going to Iraq twice and he is going to Afghanistan.  He has told me things that I wouldn't even share with a good conservative about the perils of war.  I know what war is and I still say, if you do not support their mission, you are not supporting the troops.

SoldiersMum wrote:I have been telling liberals for years now that saying "I support the troops but not their mission" is a boldfaced lie.  If you don't support what you have sent them to do, then you are not supporting the troops.  

They take great exception to the fact I point out they are liars.  I have been called any number of names; but I stand my ground.  I have lived with a son going to Iraq twice and he is going to Afghanistan.  He has told me things that I wouldn't even share with a good conservative about the perils of war.  I know what war is and I still say, if you do not support their mission, you are not supporting the troops.

Amen.

I've tried the following analogy, but for some reason nobody (on either side) likes it:

"I support child-rapists ........ I just don't support child rape."

This, to me, is the equivalent of the "I support the troops, but not the war" Leftists.  I hope it's obvious that I am not comparing our troops to child-rapists.   It's just the most offensive/shocking crime, and so makes the illogic of the statement that much clearer/attention-grabbing.

The point is that those opposed to the war do (and must) believe that the war itself, and its objective, are criminal.  And, since we're talking about war ..... it must be a pretty bad crime.  To say that you do not support a criminal (from their perspective) act, but that you can support the individuals actively engaged in that "crime" is ludicrous.  It CANNOT make sense.  It's not a matter of opinion, those who say that they "support the troops, but not the war" are either holding two mutually exclusive beliefs (a sign of insanity), or are lying.  One CANNOT do both.

Thus:
"I support child-rapists, but I don't support child rape."

Or, if you prefer .....

"I support McDonald's, but I don't support fast-food."

"I support the tobacco companies, but I don't support smoking."

"I support the Sun, but I don't support sunlight."

"I support Michael Vick, but I don't support dog-fighting."

etc., etc.

Eyas, you raise an interesting point. Most, if not all liberal arguments, are based on illogical thought processes. I'll list a few of these classic liberal arguments for consideration.
Increasing the minimum wage helps low income workers. How? When McDonald's has to pay its employees more, the price of a Big Mac goes up to compensate. The low income consumer has no more buying power than before. Branding McDonald's a greedy corporation does nothing to help the low income worker. The real net gain for the intended recipient is zero.

Raising taxes on the wealthy benefits the less fortunate. Higher tax rates, reduce the available pool of investment capital. Expansion is retarded, thus fewer jobs are created. Efficiency upgrades, which could lower or hold down consumer prices, are not implemented. Small companies are taxed out of business, and jobs are lost. Large companies, to maintain profit margin, outsource jobs. The ripple effect comes into play. Again, anti-capitalist rhetoric accomplishes nothing of substance. All of this helps the "less fortunate" how?

We must make higher education more affordable with tax credits, subsidies, etc. As soon as the university system hears this, tuition and fees go up. Why? Because every potential student now has X additional dollars to spend on education, allowing salary and benefit increases for faculty and staff. The net gain to the consumer is zero. How is this more affordable? And, where are the libs decrying the greed of Big Education?

Capital punishment is immoral, while abortion is a woman's right. The only crimes subject to capital punishment are premeditated murder and treason. Put treason aside, as there has not been a capital prosecution of it in over 50 years. The condemned made a conscious decision to take a human life, without provocation. He is punished with forfeiture of his own life. Opponents call this state sanctioned murder. If this is immoral, how is abortion exempt from the same standard? Most abortion clinics are subsidized with tax funds; therefore, the state is sanctioning the activity. A human life is terminated. Where is the logical distinction between the two?
Libs tell us that the condemned should live and remain in prison for life. Should the aborted child not also live, and be adopted? What makes the life of a convicted murderer more precious than that of a baby who has consciously harmed no one? The convict chooses to do wrong. The unborn child has had no opportunity to choose. The aborted child has no opportunity at all.
The truly despicable is worthy of salvation, while the truly innocent is subjugated to condemnation. This is moral? Just? Virtuous? Noble?

Liberalism defies logic. It is a tempest of contradictory viewpoints conveniently applied for personal expediency without context or continuity.

You're absolutely right.  Liberalism defies logic.  But even that is almost too generous.  Liberals aren't just wrong, they are the OPPOSITE of right (correct) on pretty much everything.  There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong about something; but it's as if liberals must first know what is right (correct) and then endorse beliefs/opinions/facts which aren't just "a little off", but which are diametrically opposed to and mutually exclusive with whatever makes logical sense.  It's not just a lack of logic or reason -- it's anti-logic ..... anti-reason.

Today, Rush read some internet explanation of what caused the Great Depression of the 30's.  The guy who wrote it claimed that the Depression was caused by the unequal distribution of wealth.  Aside from the fact that such a statement is PURE Communism; the author went on to claim that economies collapse if there is not an equal distribution of wealth.

Obviously, a total equality of wealth would obviate the need for markets or any economy at all.  ALL economies, ALL trade, ALL production, ALL consumption by EVERY HUMAN BEING SINCE THE PALEOLITHIC ERA has been based on one person having something he doesn't want, but that another person wants and doesn't have.  (overly simplistic, but generally true).  Despite this OBJECTIVE FACT, the author instead chose to believe the EXACT OPPOSITE of reality.

Truly Amazing.

I have a theory as to why liberals believe the opposite of truth/correctness/fact/reality.  I've said it before, but would be happy to blather on about it if you're curious.

Eyas,
Absolutely lay it on me.

The decision (conscious or subconscious) to be a Liberal is determined by the existence of a fundamentally flawed psyche.  On a person by person basis, those individuals with this flawed personality become liberals.  It is not possible to be a liberal without having this fundamental personality disorder.

To explain, I'll just copying something I wrote on an earlier thread which asked the question, "Why are liberals so hateful and angry?"

Why do liberals hate so much? Because they continue to be unsuccessful in their ONLY goal in life.

What is a liberal's only goal in life? What motivates a liberal in all things large & small?

A desire to convince others that they are better than everyone else. An insatiable NEED to APPEAR morally superior to other people.

They do not focus on problems or their solutions. They NEVER follow a step by step logical progression of trying to figure out the best alternative solution to a given problem. They also NEVER assess whether a presumed problem is an actual problem. They are utterly incapable of introspection. They are incapable of struggling to figure out what is truly right and wrong -- perhaps because they see no distinction between a "true" right and wrong.

To a liberal, what is "right", is what APPEARS to be right. Whatever postition APPEARS to give them the moral high-ground. Whatever belief makes them FEEL as if they are morally superior than others.

As a result, they do not even attempt to reason out the best solution or position. They jump directly past reasons, logic and inconvenient facts -- straight to the solution/position which immediately APPEARS to be more moral; and which ought to, in their minds, make it clear to everyone else how much "better" they are: how much more "moral", how much more "tolerant", how much more "compassionate".

The ONE and ONLY purpose in the life of EVERY liberal, is to APPEAR morally superior to others. This is truth.


So, why do they hate? Why are they so angry?

Quite simply because they haven't been able to convince everyone that they are the best, most moral, most tolerant, and most compassionate people in the world.

When their conscious mind starts to become aware that the positions/opinions/beliefs that they hold are based upon nothing and are, in fact, NOT the most moral or compassionate -- their subconscious mind REBELS, and their deeply ingrained feelings of superiority scream out in hatred, fear, and anger. To allow rational thought to disturb their pre-conceived notions of moral superiority would force them -- on the spot -- to confront the possibility that their entire perception of themselves, their whole lives, their whole personality, their IDENTITY is based upon nothing. I wouldn't expect anyone to back down or admit being mistaken when doing so would result in the total disintigration of their identity and sense of self.

Eyas,

Interesting. I agree with your assessment, in part. However, I think the basic goal of liberals is power. Power big and small. The power to control others is more addictive than any drug ever made. They want to dictate the where, when and how of every aspect of our lives. They jump from position to position searching for a gimmick that will resonate with the uninformed. This is why libs are forever reinventing or redefining themselves. (How many times did we hear these phrases during the Clinton Administration?) We find this quest at every level. National, state, municipal government, the PTA, neighborhood associations, labor unions, news media, etc. They all get off on telling the rest of us what to do.
The holy trinity of liberalism, political correctness, feminism and environmentalism, is the grand power grab strategy. These three parallel agendas encompass all that is liberalism, a never ending quest for power. They are going to tell us what to say, how to say it, who we can say it to; what is acceptable behavior, what is acceptable humor, what when and how we may criticize; where to live, what to live in, what to buy and sell, what to drive, if we can drive at all, what to eat and drink.
Committed liberals use moral and intellectual superiority to intimidate and brow beat non-conformists into submission. They are not searching for the moral high ground. They are convinced they own it. Their anger is born of frustration because so many of us dolts just "don't get it." Liberals know best, just shut up and get in line.
Here's where I agree with you. The uncommitted or wannabe liberal, those looking for someone to follow, for whatever reason, do search in vain for moral authority to support their arguments. Deep inside their conscience tells them what they are trying to believe is wrong. But, trying to be good liberals, they trust their flawed intellect and leftist propaganda, and suppress the little voice that keeps nagging. This causes inner conflict and confusion, which breeds anger. Committed liberals manipulate them and perpetuate the anger, giving it direction. Drinking the koolaid is more palatable than introspection. These are the scowl-faced libs who lash out at the world, they don't understand. And, spout talking points they can't justify.
The HRCs and BHOs of the world are power mongers. They know exactly what they are doing.

I've painted some broad strokes and I know there are always exceptions. Feel free to critique and tell me if you think I'm off base.