Why are liberals so full of hate speech and rhetoric, yet never actually suggest or accomplish anything?

Question

Liberals are always the first to critique, yell, shout "Bush Lied, People Died," "We Hate Bush," etc. Liberals, especially the frontman Ted Kennedy and frontwoman Hillary, will do and say anything to get ahead. They contradict themselves incessantly. They are always the first to jump on the "Republicans are liars" bandwagon, yet have no foundation for their claims.

Why? Why are they so vain? So phony? So out-of-touch with reality?

Answer 1

I love the ignorant allegations Bush lied about WMD -

Shall we review for the little socialist wannabe lemmings and show how stupid just that one statement sounds -

Found in Iraq:

* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

If Bush lied to America - who did these liberals lie to?

Does anyone recall Bush running around texas claiming Saddam had WMD since some of these statements go back to 1998?


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

Did Clinton sign the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 because he was making an early play for their oil?

Did Clinton give a no bid contract to Haliburton in Kosovo just to get on their good side?


http://www.usembassy-dhaka.org/state/sta...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3...

http://www.military.com/newscontent/0,13...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/transcripts/0...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1201...

Answer 2

Liberals with hate speech?!? When is the last time you saw a Liberal carrying a sign on CNN saying "God hates F*gs"?

Why do we rail against the Republicans? Because the Green and the Libertarian parties don't do a whole lot - they're the water chestnuts in the political salad - they add nothing to the taste, and the only way you know they are around is when you bite down on one of them.

As far as not accomplishing anything, I think Bill Clinton did an acceptable job: the job market was really good, and the deficit was actually going down

Liberals are vain? Only to match the self-rightiousness of Conservatives.

If by "I'm out of touch with reality" you mean that I get my news from other sources than Fox News, then you'd be correct.

Answer 3

Actually, Republicans have lied. But they are being hypocritical, I suppose, because liberals have lied as well. Most politicians lie, period, regardless of their beliefs.
But the real question is, why are you asking this question? You are asking not for information, but rather, to advance your views against liberals. Some people may think that way about conservatives-that they are vain and phony, etc. But what is the point of this question? Do you expect a serious answer? You are either going to get people supporting your view, which, whether right or wrong, is very biased, and your question will receive biased answers. Or, you are going to get a flame war from the liberals. Is it really worth wasting the points? If you feel so strongly against Kennedy and Clinton, etc, why don't you get off your as$, stop asking lame questions on Yahoo! Answers, and volunteer with a local conservative political group...after all, elections are right around the corner...

Answer 4

Republicans are not liars, they are spawns of satan, this statement is just as general as yours, If you want the truth stop throwing around names and statements like that, those are the real reasons why we cannot get anything done. liberals are not all like Kennedy/Hillary, if fact I would not want him/her to represent me. I personally feel that Republicans contradict themselves and are self serving on top of everything. Also if you think liberals have no foundation for their claims, then you are not willing to pay attention to what they have to say. You can not hear when you are running your mouth. I come from florida which is a republican state, and I wouldn't want bush to represent me either, he can't keep his own children off of drugs. He is just as bad as Kennedy. Liberals vote for the greater good of all the people, Republicans vote to help themselves, with no concern for the greater good of us all. We need to look out for each other, Republicans are selfish, liberals want to make things better for all, and maybe we don't have all the answers now, but we are trying to come up with them. if you shut your own mouth long enough, your ears might beable to hear the truth.

Answer 5

Hate speech and rhetoric, huh? Well, isn't Ann Coulter a conservative author? Didn't she call widows from 9-11 witches? Didn't she say on MSNBC to a disabled Vietnam veteran that people like him, "caused us to lose the war?" In 1999, she said there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for poor people to vote.
I used her as an example because people on both sides of political fence, liberal and conservative, use hateful speech and rhetoric. I just happen to notice that when conservatives use hate in their speech it seems to be directed at the poor and unfortunate members of society. I wonder what's worse -- criticizing the president and other conservatives or picking on a disabled veteran?

Answer 6

New Deal, Great Society, welfare state --I would say liberals have accomplished a lot. These may not be successes by any objective standard relating to people's well being. But these programs' advocates are quite content to simply expand the government's control over our lifes. I would say liberals have many reasons to be proud.

Now, did Bush lie? I sure hope so! If he didn't, our intellegence agencies are utterly incompetent (not so surprising for big government programs).

Answer 7

Why, oh why, do conservatives continually thump their Bibles while at the same time supportiing an unprovoked war and spewing such hate-filled, negative questions? It's hypocritical. I am a Christian AND a Liberal, and I find all the conservative preaching and using MY beliefs for their personal, immoral agendas quite offensive. My religion should have NOTHING to do with the decisions made about the law.

Answer 8

If you aren't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

Also,Ted Kennedy said,of Bush's failed attempt to deny gays feredom of religion,"We don't need to write bigotry into the constituition."It was one of the greatest examples of human decency and moral clarity this country has ever seen.

Try getting that much value from a hateful reactionary.

Who would jesus bomb?

Answer 9

Oh, yeah. Those liberals are bad news. Here's how to debate them:

Liberal Lie: "We rushed to war on false pretenses."
Educated Response: "You Hate America!"

Liberal Lie: "The Constitution isn't a political tool."
Educated Response: "Read the Bible!"

Liberal Lie: "The Clear Skies Initiative raises pollution."
Educated Response: "America Hater!"

Liberal Lie: "There is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda."
Educated Response: "Traitor!"

Liberal Lie: "The tax cuts clearly benefit the wealthy."
Educated Response: "Stop hating America!"

Liberal Lie: "They turned a surplus into a deficit."
Educated Response: "It's Clinton's fault!"

Liberal Lie: "The 2000 Election was a sham."
Educated Response: "You hate, Hate, HATE America!"

Liberal Lie: "I don't hate America."
Educated Response: "Flip-Flopper!"

Remember, it's not about being right.... it's about winning!

Answer 10

Both sides do it. It's much easier than actually standing on your own accomplishments than to just tear down the other group by mud slinging.

But liberals are not alone. Both sides take part in this wonderful activity.

Answer 11

I think you got it backwards! Hilary and Teddy didn't start a war! DUH!!

No foundations. I have plenty of foundations. Want to start with the WMD's in Iraq?

Out of touch? When is the last time you worked with someone who is poor?

We don't submit the racist, bigoted, homophobic questions you do!!!!!!

And you guys are still bashing Clinton, who was 100 times better than the Fascist you have in there now!
Guess you never listen to Rush, the drug addict! Or Ann, the Shrill, Coulter.

Let me guess, your news station is Fox (Nothing but a lie)news!

The tax cuts did benefit the wealthy unless you call $20.00 benefiting the low wage earners.

We got the deficit down and had the budget balanced until Bush!, we started minimum wage, no children in sweat shop, OSHA. Oh I get it, if it benefits anyone other than the wealthy it doesn't count!

What have you done A 8 Trillion 600 billion dollar deficit, 2,495 military home in body bags, cut veterans benefits, wanted to take away there combat pay and have cut almost every single domestic program in the country, while getting to tax cuts for the wealthy.

You have done a hell of a lot!!

And freetobe me, the person who goes on tirades who knows squat. Bush started the war! And he was never a danger to us, Since when did you ever listen to Kennedy anyway?

How about your buddies!

"There were no U.S. or British combat casualties or aircraft losses--an exceptional achievement, in Zinni's view. "Even in peacetime, exercises of this scale can be dangerous and can be very, very trying; to do this without any casualties in the environment our forces faced was truly remarkable," Zinni said at a 21 December Pentagon press briefing.

More than 300 U.S. and British war-planes, spearheaded by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps squadrons operating at night from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise during initial missions on 16 December, flew over 650 strike and strike-support sorties against approximately 100 Iraqi military and military-related targets. Ten ships of the U.S. Fifth Fleet launched more than 325 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bolstered with an additional punch from more than 90 cruise missiles launched from U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers. Thousands of U.S. ground troops, augmented by hundreds of special operations forces, also were deployed to protect Kuwai

NO ONE WAS KILLED!!

Republicans:

House Republican Leader Dick Armey said suspicions about Clinton's motives in ordering strikes against Iraq showed he was losing the ability to lead the nation.
"I would like to think that no American president would even consider using the military to help him remain in office," Armey said in a statement. "But the fact that Americans are expressing these doubts shows that the president is losing his ability to lead."


by Patrick J. Buchanan
December 18, 1998


Clinton declared on Wednesday that he is acting to protect the "people throughout the Middle East and around the world." How does Saddam threaten "the world"? If we "fail to respond," said Clinton, Saddam "will make strikes again at his neighbors ... make war on his own people (and) develop weapons of mass destruction, deploy them, and he will use them."

Let's deconstruct that. Yes, Saddam makes "war on his own people," but who inflicts the greater suffering -- Saddam or a U.S.-led embargo that has claimed the lives of 239,000 children, 5 years old and under, since 1990?