Are all conservatives traitors?

Randy, Kayla makes a good point. Is Munchie saying that opposing voices should be eliminated? It sounds like, to Munchie, that in order to keep America free and strong, opposition voices should be silenced by force. He has made himself the sole arbiter of what speech builds America up, and what speech tears America down.

And you agree with that, Randy? Really?

This thread and 99% of the other discussions are only exercises in dumbing down events having more than one dimension in order for you and the other righties to shoehorn anything into your pitiful little boxes of "understanding." Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Still another ass-backward account of reality. Rather it's you lefties who are trying to dumb down the message. Note the title of this thread and its initiator. Then notice how his premise falls apart in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

There are the Rosenbergs. They were the communist spies who passed A-bomb weapon's technology to the Soviet Union. Thus, they helped initiate and perpetuate the Cold War which lasted until 1989.

In a 1995 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Bui Tin, a communist contemporary of Giap and Ho Chi Minh, who was serving as an NVA colonel assigned to the general staff at the time Saigon fell, had this to say about the liberal media and leftist puppets like "Hanoi" Jane Fonda and John Kerry:

1995 WSJ interviewer – Q: “Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?”

Colonel Bui Tin – A: “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and would struggle along with us.”

Bui also stated, “Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win … We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.”

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp
http://patriotpost.us/reference/hanoi-jane/


In a 1989 interview with Morley Safer, General Giap – the architect of the Vietnamese victory – said this:

“We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory....

“The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion” The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations by Howard Langer (Greenwood Press, 2005, p. 318).

heh heh heh...

COF and IBH are finally showing signs of an intellectual pulse.

Hell no, Munchie's thread here is merely use of good theater and should be a lesson as to what the majority of you ultra-righties' extreme rants look like to the rest of the world. I think it's called PARODY.

IBH, in Viet Nam's War of Northern Aggression, like any other civil war, General Giap's quote is telling and a good example of what "true believers" will do to achieve their goals. The only reason a lot of people, including me, were opposed to that little adventure was that we were expending lives, material and treasure without actually trying to win. That's a real way to inspire the troops and the folks back home. The lesson on North Korea kept us from aggressively taking on the North because of the fear of a replay of the swarming hordes of Chinese that would have probably come. And, since all of the dominoes have fallen and the entirity of SE Asia is now under Communist rule, uh, hmmm, er, well, sorry about that - I guess it isn't. Oh well, so much for the Domino Theory. Sometimes it's hell being ahead of the curve. But not often.

It's easy to see our intellectual pulse against Munchie's flatline.

heh heh heh...

COF and IBH are finally showing signs of an intellectual pulse. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Whereas, you've yet to make a beep.

Hell no, Munchie's thread here is merely use of good theater and should be a lesson as to what the majority of you ultra-righties' extreme rants look like to the rest of the world. I think it's called PARODY.

IBH, in Viet Nam's War of Northern Aggression, like any other civil war, General Giap's quote is telling and a good example of what "true believers" will do to achieve their goals. The only reason a lot of people, including me, were opposed to that little adventure was that we were expending lives, material and treasure without actually trying to win. That's a real way to inspire the troops and the folks back home. The lesson on North Korea kept us from aggressively taking on the North because of the fear of a replay of the swarming hordes of Chinese that would have probably come. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Hey, your little admission just further exemplified and underscored why munchie's little theory is so full of shit.

And, since all of the dominoes have fallen and the entirity of SE Asia is now under Communist rule, uh, hmmm, er, well, sorry about that - I guess it isn't. Oh well, so much for the Domino Theory. Sometimes it's hell being ahead of the curve. But not often. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

My, how condescending of you. Aren't liberals supposed to "feel the pain" of the down-trodden? What about China and North Korea already under communist rule? Yeah, forget about those little factoids because they don't fit your cock-eyed view of the world. Then you discount Vietnam, and then Cambodia under Pol Pot. Wasn't that enough "Domino Theory" for you?

Under Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed 2 million out of an estimated 7.1 million people; making it the most lethal regime of the 20th century. So stick your substance-addled head up your hairy-ass and pretend it didn't happen because you and your little punk-ass buddies "saved the world" with your showboat hooliganism and vandalization of private and public property.

You know Munchman tried so hard, we have to give him some credit for a vivid imagination. However, Munchman did lie about the comments on spies and hangings. You never said that and we all know it so why make the claim. Like I said the old liberals and old conservatives are not today's libs and conservatives. Like me give you a reading assignment; Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, 4th edition, Robert Jackson and Georg Sorenson, Chapter 2, pages 28 to 55. This will clear up any confusion and you are very confused.

You see if we use your logic then democrats are guilty, so very guilty, of supporting slavery. They voted for it, they fought for it, and they tried to bring it back with Jim Crow, chain gangs, and the Klan. This is the legacy of the democrats and accordingly modern democrats are equally guilty. Whereas the GOP voted against slavery and sent young men off to war to free the slaves. The GOP voted to give women the right to vote and the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The GOP also repealed the government overreach of Woodrow Wilson (an ardent racist).

Now we all know why Munchman hates modern democrats so much. They're not trying to live up to their past hard enough. Pikers!!! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

He's, along with others, are confusing 2012 Democrats with Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats were right-wing, racist, Republicans that were too stupid to vote Republican because their daddy's, daddy, since the War all voted Democrat. With the WWII generation, the Southern Democrat is dieing out.

I'm sorry Olivia but Southern Democrats were never Republicans. They were just racist democrats. In fact, the Dixiecrats separated themselves from the democratic party because they felt that that Truman went too far with integration. After their defeat some went back to the democrats, some retired, and some did go on to the GOP because they figured that they had burned all their bridges. When they did a conversion happened to them. In 1964 when the Civil Rights bill was being debated some Democratic Senators filibustered the bill (Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. Fullbright (Clinton's acknowledged mentor). It was the GOP and Everett Dirksen that LBJ gave the credit for passing the bill. http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319648.html
I'm truly sorry Olivia but the democratic party owns those racist roots. I wish today that I had a real choice between democrats and republicans but until the leadership changes to a more US friendly faction I have to keep looking to the GOP for my leaders if they pass my tests.

I'm sorry Olivia but Southern Democrats were never Republicans. They were just racist democrats. In fact, the Dixiecrats separated themselves from the democratic party because they felt that that Truman went too far with integration. After their defeat some went back to the democrats, some retired, and some did go on to the GOP because they figured that they had burned all their bridges. When they did a conversion happened to them. In 1964 when the Civil Rights bill was being debated some Democratic Senators filibustered the bill (Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. Fullbright (Clinton's acknowledged mentor). It was the GOP and Everett Dirksen that LBJ gave the credit for passing the bill. http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319648.html
I'm truly sorry Olivia but the democratic party owns those racist roots. I wish today that I had a real choice between democrats and republicans but until the leadership changes to a more US friendly faction I have to keep looking to the GOP for my leaders if they pass my test. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

For starters, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. It's a common mistake dogmatics make when they try to label Independents. Secondly, I wasn't talking about politicians specifically. I was talking about the Democratic Tea Partiers in general. Many of my uncles fought in WWII. I remember that generation well. I remember as they were quite old and mellowed some, but nonetheless I remember them. They were socially and fiscally conservative, strong foreign policy types the believed in small government and social welfare for "their" kind (I don't know how they reconciled that one.) and they were pretty much yellow dog Democrats until the switchers like Graham started leaving the Democratic party. The traits I just mentioned are ALL Republican ideals / mandates. Racists are in both parties, but as I said, they were kind of a corner stone of the Southern Democrat.

Olivia, I never said or suggested that you were a democrat or not. I don't know how you can say something about Democratic Tea Partiers because Tea Parties don't self indentify as one political party or the other. It is the MSM that always identifies the TEA party are Republicans of some stripe or another. They are like to say that there is not such thing as a democratic Tea Partier.
As for your contention that those are GOP traits, I think history says otherwise and says it very forcefully.

IB, doooooood, go back and look at how Reagan sold the Grenada invasion. The short version is "It isn't going to be another Viet Nam." Sorry, the flatline just popped up again on your monitor. Condescending? Nah, just factual. You righty-tighties just can't deal with it when you and your emperors are shown to have no clothes. Hell, you guys should be running a freaking perpetual nudist colony.

You see if we use your logic then democrats are guilty, so very guilty, of supporting slavery. They voted for it, they fought for it, and they tried to bring it back with Jim Crow, chain gangs, and the Klan. This is the legacy of the democrats and accordingly modern democrats are equally guilty. Whereas the GOP voted against slavery and sent young men off to war to free the slaves. The GOP voted to give women the right to vote and the GOP voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The GOP also repealed the government overreach of Woodrow Wilson (an ardent racist).

Now we all know why Munchman hates modern democrats so much. They're not trying to live up to their past hard enough. Pikers!!! Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Democrats were the conservative of that time, The Republicans were the liberal progressive. Are you really this ignorant?

Munch made a point, Conservative are more resistant to change. That is just a scientific fact. I do not agree with all the causality that he has drawn from it but to disagree with the premises is to deny scientific data.Nothing wrong with being resistant to change. We need all types in this world.


You better hope I never take a class from you with this kind of logic, you'd be let got half way through and I'd wind up teaching those students critical thinking.

You obviously can't read very well WTF. The people haven't changed, the titles have. Today's liberal was a progressive socialist in 1901. Today's conservative was a liberal in 1790. Go forth and read some Locke, Hume, and Jefferson. Jefferson, who you would call a liberal, wanted the states to have the power and the federal government to be weakened. Jefferson didn't want long term laws to be imposed on all Americans. Jefferson wanted all laws to be voted upon every 20 years (a generation) so a son would not be forced to live under his father's laws. Jefferson was all about freedom of the individual and a non-interferring government. It is that obvious.

You obviously can't read very well WTF. The people haven't changed, the titles have. Today's liberal was a progressive socialist in 1901. Today's conservative was a liberal in 1790. Go forth and read some Locke, Hume, and Jefferson. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes by golly you got it!. What Munch is saying is that Conservatives are resistant to change. That is a fact. He is adhering to a very rigid definition of the word. The fact of the matter is that you can be liberal on some views and conservative on others. I will demonstarte below.

Jefferson didn't want long term laws to be imposed on all Americans. Jefferson wanted all laws to be voted upon every 20 years (a generation) so a son would not be forced to live under his father's laws. Jefferson was all about freedom of the individual and a non-interferring government. It is that obvious. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yet my guess is you are not for the inheritance tax. Something that perpetuates generational rule. A son has not earned that money. That money should go back into the coffers to be fought over by the son that distinguishes himself from his generation. . . and to pay off debt that the father ran up with the state by not paying enough taxes to cover the states share of him doing business.

One last thing with you State right holier than thou folks...wtf is the difference between the States telling you wtf you can and can't do and the Federal Government. I no more want the states telling me when and whom I can have sex with as I do the States. That is where you cats lose me ...

... What Munch is saying is that Conservatives are resistant to change. That is a fact. Originally Posted by WTF

RESISTANT to change? As a Conservative I take issue with this characterization. While a thorough grounding in conservative political philosophy (starting perhaps with Edmund Burke, but not ending with Russell Kirk) would be expected of a debate partner on this issue, I can't assume that is the case in all instances, and there isn't space on this board to provide it. So for now a quote from a famous Brit will do to illustrate what I mean:

"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

Lucius Falkland, 1641

This doesn't translate to "resistant to change." It more accurately translates to "prove to me it's NECESSARY to change and then we can discuss HOW to change. But until then, I'm sticking with what is working." Unlike Obama's "my way or the highway approach" so typical of the ruling elite.

Oops, did I say RULING elite when I should have said GOVERNING elite. My mistake. I should be doing all I can to perpetuate the myth that we're still a self-governing nation. We clearly are not. We are a RULED nation. And that is the most un-American development of the last 3 years of the Obama regime (oops, I meant "administration.")

IB, doooooood, go back and look at how Reagan sold the Grenada invasion. The short version is "It isn't going to be another Viet Nam." Sorry, the flatline just popped up again on your monitor. Condescending? Nah, just factual. You righty-tighties just can't deal with it when you and your emperors are shown to have no clothes. Hell, you guys should be running a freaking perpetual nudist colony. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

You were shown historical, factual examples of ‘liberal traitors’ who betrayed national interests. This was to refute the OP’s original premise that it is ‘conservatives’ who are traitors. Unable to refute those examples, you began arguing and ‘claimed’ the ‘Domino Theory’ was invalid, and fairly much admitted you were one of the substance-addled, liberal traitors who girded the communist enemy in Vietnam with greater resolve. Again, the facts of history, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, destroyed your petty, deluded argument. Now you retort with non-substantive remarks about Reagan and Grenada!?! ‘No clothes’, you’ve demonstrated you have no cogent thoughts. You are worse than useless. Keep your substance-addled head up your hairy-ass and keep pretending it all didn't happen because you and your little punk-ass buddies "saved the world" with your showboat hooliganism and vandalization of private and public property.