Did I mention that I try not to get involved in political discussions? I did? Damn. Every time I do that, I end up wrong.
There is very little factual about anything you said above. What you have there, for the most part, are a bunch of half-baked opinions based on what fits your world view. They're an attempt to explain to yourself the thought processes of people who think differently than you, but facts? No, not even close.
First off, if wasn't obvious already, I'm pretty liberal myself. Not really a full-on tree-hugger, but I've been known to call myself liberal without being ashamed of it. Maybe this is conceited of me, but I think I've got a bit more insight into the liberal mentality than you seem to, so indulge me while I give you a quick critique of your points from a liberal point of view.
Originally Posted by Danwell
Sad Fact: The liberals would LOVE for us to lose this war and would LOVE for the economy to fall and crash.
Liberals don't want us to lose this war; we want us out of it. I'll go into that a bit more later, but for now I'd submit we don't like to be lied to about why we're going to topple someone else's government, and we tend to believe that the U.S. Armed Services shouldn't have to do double-duty as Global Sheriff's Department, forcing the American Way on countries that don't want it.
Also, we don't want to see the economy go further into the toilet than it already is. Frankly, in my case, I've done pretty damn well for myself, even in a weak economy, and I'd like to keep raking it in, thanks. Because of this, what I (and, I suspect, most of my more liberal-minded brethren) would like to see is for the economy to improve. The fact that it hasn't been to any really appreciable degree, at least as far as the common man-on-the-street-looking-for-a-job is concerned, is one of the things we don't like about Bush. So, see, you've got that one completely backwards.
They want President Bush out so bad that they would vote for any freak that call themself left-wing. They are starting to realize that Kerry is a very weak canadate but will vote for him anyway just to "get Bush out".
This one's got a bit of truth to it. Liberals, as you know, can't stand Bush. In my case, he's about the worst nightmare of a president I can imagine. See, I'm one of those liberals who tends to agree somewhat with conservatives when it comes to things like not liking big government, but who really goes nuts when they try to legislate things like morality, where we don't think the government's got any business.
Bush, on the other hand, is the opposite. He's a big-spending, government-expanding kind of guy who seems more concerned with what goes on in other countries and other people's bedrooms than he does with the nation he's governing. Personally, I think his administration has their priorities completely screwed up. I also personally believe the man's a classless, dopey embarrassing oaf, but that's more a personal peeve than a political view.
For those reasons, (and a whole lot of others, but I can see already this is gonna get long) I would vote for almost anyone, left-wing freak or otherwise, who wasn't Bush. I've got my limits (Lyndon LaRouche, for example, wouldn't get my vote under any circumstances), but if it were up to me to choose whether some random guy on the street or George W. Bush were to be president, frankly I think I'd be willing to take my chances with the guy on the street.
President Bush actually has a backbone and the politically corrupted just can't stand that.
This makes absolutely no sense. Corruption comes in both liberal and conservative flavors -- are you suggesting liberals, as a general rule, are politically corrupt, and conservatives aren't? If so, I'd be more than willing to point out to you a *very* long list of offenses committed by conservatives. Nobody's got a monopoly on corruption.
I won't though, because I frankly have no clue what point you were trying to get across when you said that.
I like having a President that won't let terror push us around. If gore was behind the wheel of the country during 911, we would probably all be wearing towels on our heads by now.
Yeah, right. That's exactly what we liberals do. Fly a plane into our buildings, and we hand over the keys to the country. Do you even *know* any liberals personally? If you do, find some new ones, because either they're really screwed up, or you're just pulling your "facts" out of your butt.
Liberals don't have a problem wiuth defending our country when it's needed. Maybe you're mistaking the distaste I, and many other liberals, share for invading sovereign nations under false pretenses for a lack of a spine. I assure you you're mistaken. And lest you start in with the usual "but Saddam Hussein was a big ol' S.O.B. who needed to go" argument, I'd like to ask, why start and stop with Iraq? Are we now supposed to start blowing up the countries and killing the people of every country whose leaders and policies we don't like? If so, we're really going to need to ramp up smart-bomb production before we start going into Cuba, and China, and Korea, and the hundreds of other places that must be next in line if those are our new criteria for attacking other nations.
I'm gonna wrap this up here -- I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I do have a problem with people who spout total BS about what liberals think, and what we want, that have no basis in reality.
Hate me if you want, and feel free to think I'm an idiot, but I just wanted to set the record straight.