Liberals Eat Babies

[RickSp]

From today's NY Times:

Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: September 24, 2004 he Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush. The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians. A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions." In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.

From Cheney's scare tactics, to outright lies, the Bush administration will do anything it has to to stay in power.

[Paavo]

They are playing on people's fears and emotions

Isn't that their usual way of getting votes anyway?

"VOTE FOR GOD...I MEAN BUSH! VOTE AGAINST TERROR ATTACKS AND PINKO HOMOS! KERRY IS FRENCH! FOLLOW JESUS AND BUSH OR YOU GO TO HELL!!!11one"

I must say, the American "political" scene is becoming more and more of a joke.

[tusaki]

I must say, the American "political" scene is becoming more and more of a joke.

Too bad the joke's on us.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp, From today's NY Times: Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: September 24, 2004 he Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush. The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians. A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions." In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings. From Cheney's scare tactics, to outright lies, the Bush administration will do anything it has to to stay in power.

What does this have to do with "Liberals Eat Babies"?

[RickSp]

What does this have to do with "Liberals Eat Babies"?

As Zell Miller told Chris Matthers - "It was a metaphor."

It was a metaphorical jab at those who would use an outrageous lie, such as "liberals will ban the bible", to scare voters into voting for them. The assertion that liberals eat babies is exactly as accurate as the assertion made by the Republican Party that liberals want to ban the bible.

Of course Bush has already lied us into war, so all the other lies that follow are relatively minor by comparison.




(edited to correct typ.)

[Dieval]

Originally posted by RickSp, Of course Bush has already lied us into war

Keep telling yourself that...I'm sure everytime you repeat it, it comes closer and closer to reality, in your mind...

And thanks for the clarification...I thought you knew something about "Liberals Eat Babies" that you didn't want to tell us about - not a metaphore..

[RickSp]

It is spelled metaphor.

You are no doubt completely wrapped up in Bush delusions - things are going just great in Iraq, (as the handpicked puppets hide in their Green Zome bunkers). The Iraqi people have been liberated, (including the ten thousand plus we have slaughtered). Things are going just fine (as we sink deeper into the quagmire with absolutely no exit strategy and no hope of winning).

Enjoy your rosy delusions as the Republicans lie about banning bibles and anything else that comes to mind. Just try not to drown in denial.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Dieval What does this have to do with "Liberals Eat Babies"?

C'mon Dieval, it's a well-know byword for demonizing your opponent. (The image comes from accusations made by the French against German troops occupying French territory in WWI.) You have to scare people so they'll vote for you since you can't count on them to do that on your merits.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-RickSp, Of course Bush has already lied us into war

Keep telling yourself that...I'm sure everytime you repeat it, it comes closer and closer to reality, in your mind...[/b][/quote] If Bush didnt lead us into war, who did?

Edit: Oooops ! My goof, Lied us into war. I need new eyeballs. I agree with Rick, anyway.

[Sonart]

QUOTE (RickSp,)
Of course Bush has already lied us into war

Keep telling yourself that...I'm sure everytime you repeat it, it comes closer and closer to reality, in your mind...

Yes, you're absolutely right, Dievel. It's very diffucult to point out where Dear Leader actually LIED to get us into this ill-advised, ill-conceived and disastrous war.

So I think we should be fair and simply say that he MISLED us into the war. Of course, there's two ways to interpret the word MISLEAD:

One would be unitentional, as in to 'lead badly', to mis-lead verb "To lead in the wrong direction." So in this case, we would have a President who led us in the wrong direction in error, through incompetence, the inability to foresee the obvious. Negligence.

The other, of course, would be that he did it intentionally, to mis-lead verb "To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving. See Synonyms at deceive". This would be saying that Bush intentionally DECEIVED the American public into believing things that simply weren't true. For instance, that Iraq is somehow tied to 9/11 or the war on terrorism. More like criminal negligence.

Either way, Dievel, I don't want Bush to be the mis-leader of our country any longer.

[Paavo]

People like Dieval and others have become so lost in their pathetic partisan pride, they don't even know what lie to hold onto and defend anymore.

1

2

3

[Paavo]

You people seem to have such a short memory, I'll help you remember - it's not that long ago - "we'll never forget", remember?

I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon

My reply:

...and the dude sends some late - token fluff to Afghanistan, and then goes to a totally unrelated country with massive forces - and people don't see anything wrong with it? Twisted times...

Compugasm replies with

When war was declared on Germany, where did we attack first?

Comrade joins in with

Morocco. Good point. Funny, isn't it? They anti-Bush people are telling me that I need to "see the big picture." I could say the same to them.

I reply with

So you're telling me Aghanistan had invaded Iraq? You can't compare these two scenarios, and you know that. Besides, if Iraq II was a purely strategic invasion, why not say so from the beginning? Why give a false reason? Why?

Vicchio replies with

What false reason is that Paavo?

I kindly remind him, as if his scrolling-up-the-page-abilites would have been somehow erased

Anything but "For strategic reasons", in this case - obviously.

Some half-assed "mmhmm" replies get posted...

And the rest is HERE

[Technosoul]

In fact would not liberals ban the Bible as a source (influence) for making political policy?

And what about gay marrages, are any of the activities between gay men canibalistic in nature? Do they not allow their partner to consume the next generation of sperm instead of planting their seeds in the womb for birthing babies?

Now I do not agree with my blunt ideas noted above but I can see how people in the Bible Belt are thinking about such matters Even if it might be a little taboo for them to say it outloud in their chruches those private thoughts none the less can be used for political gain.

Bush in his address to the U.N. wanted them to make an interntional law that no one would be allowed to alter the natual creation of life (cloning, abortion, and alternative sex, and some kinds of stem cell treatments).

Kerry seems to side step the issue a bit, pushing such determination upon local governments instead of Congress or the White House doing it. However would there be enough fundamentalist nations in the world who could win a majority vote for such an international law? In which case the USA would subject of.

Kerry wants to ban capital punishment with exceptions made for a few terrorists. And so I am wondering if capital punishment would be the same as a "very late term abortion" to get rid of a unwanted life? Is war not a form of late term abortion only we just wait until after they live long enough to be judged as "the unwanted one".

What is the difference?

Technosoul.

[Kyran]

Ahh, the old "Bush lied about Iraq" argument...

That's not very fair ganging up on Dieval guys.

Originally posted by RickSp,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RickSp,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>From Cheney's scare tactics, to outright lies, the Bush administration will do anything it has to to stay in power.[/b]

This is a very large inference made from One fact. Let's verify whether the allegations charged by Bush's fliers are legitamite or not before we judge them.

http://www.crossroad.to/News/Persecution/seeds.html
http://www.persecution.org/

Persecution is a reality for Christians in intolerant nations abroad. We have had cases in the USA and in Canada where the mere speech of religiously-oriented persons has resulted in their imprisonment. I would be glad to dig out specific article sources if anyone disagrees. They are there, trust me. You can check South Carolina's State Code of Laws to verify that it is illegal to disrupt church services. Jesus disrupted church services back in His day, so objectively speaking Christians are silenced here in this state.

I do not view Bush's fliers as anything which plays on fears. It is a warning. Is using a warning to obtain political support consistent with playing on fear? If so, then we are all guilty of doing this, because everyone of us fears what someone in one party or the other is going to do; and we talk to others about it. Liberals here on this forum have said "our economy is in a wreck, our education is suffering, our reputation is ruined, we need to get Bush out." Do I need to draw conclusions?

As far as this "Bush lied" thing goes...what did Bush lie about? Substantiate your claim with evidence please.

Originally posted by Paavo,@ People like Dieval and others have become so lost in their pathetic partisan pride, they don't even know what lie to hold onto and defend anymore.

Oh really? Which lie are they or I holding onto? I have affirmed belief that Saddam had WMDs, that he was capable of delivering them to al-Qaeda, and that removing him from power to stabilize & democratize the country would be good, IMHO, for promoting long-term friendship in the Arab world.

I defend my views. I can name off several assertions I've dismissed in the past 6 months.

Lie #1: Saddam had WMDs.
--Disproven by Sarin bomb

Lie #2: Saddam had working WMDs.
--Disproven by live Sarin bomb; mix was active

Lie #3: Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs.
--Disproven by truckloads (of WMDs) being moved from an Iraqi depot hours before UN inspectors arrived, prior to the US invasion, as shown in Colin Powell's report to Congress and broadcast on CNN.

Lie #4: No Iraq-alQaeda connection.
--Disproven by mounting evidence; here's a tidbit.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/152lndzv.asp

Lie #5: Saddam would never help al-Qaeda.
--Complete and utter assumption ignoring 1) the fact that Saddam has paid the families of suicide bombers in the past who martyred themselves in the attack of Israel and 2) the fact that person(s) responsible for the first WTC attack were given shelter by Saddam.

<!--QuoteBegin-Paavo,
...and the dude sends some late - token fluff to Afghanistan, and then goes to a totally unrelated country with massive forces - and people don't see anything wrong with it? Twisted times...[/quote]

I've never seen anything wrong with removing dictators from power. What? We didn't even kill Saddam. Anyway, the idea that Iraq is "unrelated" is your own personal belief in dispute of established facts. But hey, trust Mainstream News Corporations to tell you the truth if that's your prerogative. I would appreciate it if you would at least concede that it is your opinion and not established fact though.

Tell ya what I think...I think you guys have deep contempt for Bush that is based in nothing but your own emotions. The man is a sitting puppet doing the work of everyone who pulls his strings from both ends of the spectrum. Ted Kennedy writes an education bill, Bush passes it. Then liberals blame him for the state of education. Bill Frist &reg; writes up a Health Care social program that his brother will cash in big on, Bush passes it. Hillary shakes hands with Frist and yet Health Care is Bush's fault. Soldiers get out of order in Iraq and start abusing prisoners; again blame goes to Bush. Assault Weapons Ban expires and the same exact people claim it's ALL Bush's fault. Congress votes to give the President authority to go to war with Iraq, and it's ALL Bush's fault.

Ron Paul voted against giving Bush that authority while Kerry went along with the show. But that doesn't really matter does it...

You wanna talk about partisan pride Paavo? Who's blind here and who's paying attention to the details?

Think about what I said.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Kyran,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Kyran,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RickSp, From Cheney's scare tactics, to outright lies, the Bush administration will do anything it has to to stay in power.

This is a very large inference made from One fact. Let's verify whether the allegations charged by Bush's fliers are legitamite or not before we judge them.[/b][/quote]

Why should Bush be different from just about any president in modern history? They ALL do whatever it takes to keep them in office. Believeing Bush is above all that is naive.

I do not view Bush's fliers as anything which plays on fears.  It is a warning.  Is using a warning to obtain political support consistent with playing on fear?  If so, then we are all guilty of doing this, because everyone of us fears what someone in one party or the other is going to do; and we talk to others about it.  Liberals here on this forum have said "our economy is in a wreck, our education is suffering, our reputation is ruined, we need to get Bush out."  Do I need to draw conclusions?

It depends on what the warning IS. If it is "vote for me or you're doomed" than it can be viewed no other way than fearmongering. As for what the "liberals here on our forum" are saying, you'd be hard pressed to dispute these claims and , if they are indeed true then Bush SHOULD be removed. Assuming the arguments regarding the economy, education and our global reputation are TRUE, how could you support Bush under these circumstances?

I defend my views.  I can name off several assertions I've dismissed in the past 6 months. Lie #1:  Saddam had WMDs. --Disproven by Sarin bomb Lie #2:  Saddam had working WMDs. --Disproven by live Sarin bomb; mix was active

If true, ONE bomb is not proof of anything more than the POSSIBILITY of WMD's. Remember the "M" stands for MASS destruction and although we know one sarin bomb can take out a subway it is not enough to base invading a country on.

Lie #3:  Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. --Disproven by truckloads (of WMDs) being moved from an Iraqi depot hours before UN inspectors arrived, prior to the US invasion, as shown in Colin Powell's report to Congress and broadcast on CNN.

Moved to where and where are they now? If we saw them being moved, it seems to me that since we were in Iraq already we should have grabbed them on the spot. At the very LEAST we should know where they WENT if we were interested enough to observe them LEAVING in the first place.
Was Powell's report and the CNN broadcast two different things or did CNN report on the SAME report? Inquiring minds want to know.

Lie #5:  Saddam would never help al-Qaeda. --Complete and utter assumption ignoring 1) the fact that Saddam has paid the families of suicide bombers in the past who martyred themselves in the attack of Israel and 2) the fact that person(s) responsible for the first WTC attack were given shelter by Saddam.

To the best of my knowledge, Saddam DID pay the families of the so-called "martyrs" ($5,000 I believe), but the suicide bombers were HAMAS and NOT Al Queda. Is that correct?

I've never seen anything wrong with removing dictators from power.  What?  We didn't even kill Saddam.

Forget the fact that a few thousand friends and family of the dead soldiers might disagree, your one sarin bomb, paying off families of HAMAS bombers and your mysterious truckloads of WMD we, according to you, just let pass to wherever they supposedly went do NOT equal a threat to the United States and we have no right to invade a soverign country based on speculation, period! Even BUSH admitted bad intel. Are you saying he was WRONG?

Bill Frist ® writes up a Health Care social program that his brother will cash in big on, Bush passes it.  Hillary shakes hands with Frist and yet Health Care is Bush's fault.

What the hell are you talking about? Bush signs a bad bill and you blame it on H. Clinton because she shook hands with him?

Soldiers get out of order in Iraq and start abusing prisoners; again blame goes to Bush.

Blame went to the Bush ADMINISTRATION, which Bush is the head of. Where do YOU think the buck stops?

Assault Weapons Ban expires and the same exact people claim it's ALL Bush's fault.

That's a lie and you know it. Show where one person said a bill EXPIRING was Bush's fault.

Congress votes to give the President authority to go to war with Iraq, and it's ALL Bush's fault.

He had the AUTHORITY, and he USED it! Congress didn't declare war on anything. So now Bush isn't responsible for his own undisputed actions, as in HE went to war after Congress ALLOWED HIM TO! I thought you were above that idiotic, senseless partisan bullshit. Of COURSE Bush is responsible for going to war with IRAQ, tell me who else would be?

Think about what I said.

Unfortunately, I am.

[Sonart]

Persecution is a reality for Christians in intolerant nations abroad.

So?

I do not view Bush's fliers as anything which plays on fears. It is a warning. Is using a warning to obtain political support consistent with playing on fear?

It is if you tell the American people, who are terrified and angry after the horrendous attack 9/11, that another country is on the verge of attacking us with even worse weapons and that they were involved with the 9/11 attack, neither of which were true.

Oh really? Which lie are they or I holding onto?

They misled us into believing Iraq had large stockpiles of B/C weapons and ongoing programs to create more.

The misled us into believing that they had an active nuclear program and were only years, if not months, from having a nuclear bomb.

The misled us into believing Iraq had close ties to al-Qaeda.

Lie #1: Saddam had WMDs. --Disproven by Sarin bomb

Actually, the Sarin bomb proved pretty much the exact opposite. The insurgents captured with it didn't even know what it was. They thought they were simply constructing a standard IED using an explosive artillery shell, as was a standard procedure.

Kyran, no one denies there were B/C munitions years ago. The idea that one or two were lost or misplaced over the previous decade, only to turn up years later in the hands of street rabble scrounging whatever they could find is understandable. The idea that vast stockpiles of weapons existed and not a single portion had been found hidden is not understandable.

If the Sarin bomb was NOT the exception that proved the rule, then why weren't any others found?

Lie #2: Saddam had working WMDs. -- Disproven by live Sarin bomb; mix was active

Why waste a good example when you can use it twice.

In that case, I'll simply use my answer twice. See above.

--Disproven by truckloads (of WMDs) being moved from an Iraqi depot hours before UN inspectors arrived, prior to the US invasion, as shown in Colin Powell's report to Congress and broadcast on CNN.

Which went... where? I'm afraid all the evidence presented by Bush and Powell has been either debunked or unsupported. Or from Bush's favorite Iranian spy, Ahmed Chalabi and his band of merry defectors.

Lie #4: No Iraq-alQaeda connection. --Disproven by mounting evidence; here's a tidbit.

Hmmmm, The Weekly Standard. That would be William Kristol's magazine, wouldn't it. I can't imagine he and his fellow NeoCons might have a vested interest in finding something, anything connecting the two. Yet a month after The Standard article, the 9/11 Commission reported NO connection between the two. I'm assuming they had access to the same information.

Lie #5: Saddam would never help al-Qaeda. --Complete and utter assumption ignoring 1) the fact that Saddam has paid the families of suicide bombers in the past who martyred themselves in the attack of Israel...

Oh the horror. And let's not forget the Saddam allowed Abu Nidal to live out his retirement in Iraq too.

Meanwhile, Iran has a clear, incontrovertable connection to active support of Hamas and Hezbolla and North Korea was shipping weapons to the Palestinians by the boatload. Makes Saddam look like kind of a piker, doesn't it.

2) the fact that person(s) responsible for the first WTC attack were given shelter by Saddam.

Not surprising, since three of them were Iraqis: Ramzi Yousef, Musab Yasin and Abdul Yasin. The rest were Palestinian and an Egyption, plus one planted FBI informant, another Egyption.

[Sonart]

Sorry, double post

[Technosoul]

I find it amazing that we still have a few diehards that believe that President Bush was totally honest about Iraq, as it was a his war of choice and not not one mandated by reality.

I am shocked people still repeat those lies as if they were never shown to false. Millions of people world wide know the war was not justified and they are not democrats and do not vote here in America.

This whole scandle is way above politics a usual, a weapon of mass distruction would be nuclear or with that much abilty to destroy.

The photos used for Powell's UN speech were checked out post haste by the inspectors and they found no evidence but instead found a factory used for something else altogether, he was found to be just bluffing.

Saddam did not ship out secret weapons to avoid discover because what would be the point of doing that if America was going to bomb him in a big war and remove him from power, what could he gain by sending his weapons someplace else? You act like Saddam is some little kid trying to hide his pot from Ma and Pa, come on, that is not reality.

The fact is Bush wanted to rush in with his war of choice before people world wide found out that it was Saddam who was telling the whole truth all along, he had no WMDs. Nor even a nuclear program to make them in the future.

President Bush has created the greatest hypocritical hype since Hilter, face it, and do not support it.

Technosoul.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Bushs spankin new lie:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6093447/

if saddam had wmd's he was silly-slow on using them. when was the last time they were used officially? 1991? furthermore saddam's military was so beaten down they posed no threat to their neighbors, let alone the US. we already stood over them in their own country before the war.

it certainly doesn't look like he had massive WMD factories or warehouses. no amount of non-nuclear WMD's could turn the tide of a large scale modern war. footsoldiers, most affected by WMD's, are small change targets in an active war. planes tanks and missiles would do the rest. aka i don't really care so much about any WMD news except for nuclear proliferation. i definately don't care enough to invade a country on -suspicion- of having WMD's.

wow iraq is totally our b!tchtoy if we can invade them over that. what if we invaded france over that? would it fly? no. but in iraq they salute it daily.