English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Maybe I had it all wrong, it was not Democrats or liberals but the socialists/communists in America.

"Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink."

By one who knows, Ion Mihai Pacepa, Pacepa, “the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc,” so he knows something about anti-American commie tactics.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010438

2007-08-11 17:17:15 · 12 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

Let's start with your definition of a liberal. To be a liberal means you have a loose constructionist view of the US Constitution...ergo, you feel the government has the authortity to take matters into it's own hands for the sake of the betterment of society...ergo, a socialist. The lines between socialism and communism are blurry. So let's call a spade a spade and just admit that liberals, communists, and socialists are just the same wolves with slightly different sheep's clothing on.

Most Democrats have a liberal outlook....therefore they are mostly liberals.

The current POTUS is a member of the Republican party.

While the Republicans (in my opinion) are fairly liberal as well (Hello Homeland Security Department! WTF was that?) He nonetheless is not a member of the Democratic Party.

So you are actually correct in your initial thinking.

2007-08-11 17:33:40 · answer #1 · answered by Willie D 7 · 0 0

Let me correct something here if you have any understanding of the former Soviet Union and its politics. I will assume you have read the works of Karl Marx. If you have and you see how the Democrat party in the USA works, then what are you missing? You tell me what is the difference between Karl Marx, the USA Democrat party, Liberals and the former Soviet Union?
George Bush hating stemmed from a presidential election that even the Liberal Media admitted was fair after many months of investigations, but that the democrat party refused to admit, an election that did not go the way the democrat party wanted it to go. It ended in defeat of Al Gore.
From that point on forward nothing George Bush did was right. George Bush according to the democrat party could not even get out of the right side of the bed. The democrat party turned this hatred of George Bush almost into a religious event.
I don't agree with George Bush in his approach for entering into Iraq. He was surrounded by a bunch of people that had zero understanding of Arabic culture and politics. But thats to late now. We are in for the long haul.
Now you have the point in history of the birth of George Bush hatred. Anything and everything that can will be blamed on George Bush. I wish that American People would re-examine there hatred for Bush. He is not such a bad president. He certainly is not the best. Especially when it comes to illegal immigration or the new North American Union.

2007-08-11 17:44:29 · answer #2 · answered by Tinman12 6 · 0 1

1. Inability to tame Iraq within 12 months.

2. American public cannot accept their own dying in the thousands.

3. 4 years, 150,000 Americans still stationed in Iraq with no light at the end of the tunnel...

All the Bush hating originate from Americans themselves - Democrats, Liberals, anti-war groups, American public. If you yourself are not united in commitment, and are against the President, what do expect the rest of the world do? Side with the President?

2007-08-11 22:24:29 · answer #3 · answered by erlish 5 · 0 1

Democratic denial to gain the hearts and minds of the weak in regards to our Middle East policy. They continue to deny the fact that they supported a war fully knowing what we were getting into. Besides old Bill had his chance and went balls-less on that try, but, don't peep a word about it they will get upset and need more bi-polar medications to deal with the reality of it all.

2007-08-11 18:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

it didnt matter who the republicans had running for president, al gore would have likely lost anyway, and who ever became the republican president would have been hated by the democrats. this started in 1994 when the republicans swept into the majority in both houses of congress led by newt gingrich. as the republicans gained power in congress, bill clinton was forced to govern from a centrist position rather than the left position he wanted to govern from. when bush had the gall to defend his rights in court, the democrats got even angrier, especially since he won. when kerry lost, and graciously bowed out, the democrats lost even more face because they were ready to again fight in court to try and take the 2004 election. the point is that the democrats, liberals especially, feel they are the party who should have the power to run the government, because they feel it is their birthright to do so.

2007-08-11 17:30:41 · answer #5 · answered by richard b 6 · 0 2

I find your source of a former Russian KGB operative very funny.

And his metaphors and views of what he believed 'America' was when he was on the outside are a hoot.

I wonder why he's not so willing to point out that the US intelligence community is behaving so much like the KGB and East German Stasi.

Perhaps we are living in a socialist state. Our current methods of torture are right out of the Communist handbooks, methods condemned by our own government when our enemies used them.

And you wonder why Bush is held in such low regard by so many Americans?

2007-08-11 17:33:06 · answer #6 · answered by Floyd G 6 · 2 2

...well ur picture doesn't make me feel comfortable that you are on the U.S.side....but in any event...Everytime I see Bush on T.V. I want to run out of the room...he has not done anything great for this country or the world...and he could....why he doesn't...well it's simple...he's a rich spoiled brat with no affection for the Plurality(Masses/poor).

...and he shows no interest in doing a job as President by getting involved with what is going on yesterday or today in America.THE ECONOMY IS NOT FINE! SOMETHING IS WRONG!

2007-08-11 17:56:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

so... the Republicans were communist in the 90s under Clinton?

this is silly... if you can't see at least some of the things he's done wrong (far beyond the common mistakes of most presidents even according to almost every Republican I know)... then I don't think there is any help for you and it would be utterly pointless to even bother trying to carry on a conversation with you on the subject...

2007-08-11 17:23:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

oh i dont know,throwin out the constitution, follow your leaders blindly because we know whats best for you!!!

torturing peaple and imprisoning them with no trial and blatantly disreguarding the majoritys wishes, wiretapping its own citizens, secret dealings with corrupt corporations!!!

takin care of the ruling class and hiding behind closed doors and calling whoever who does not agree with your policies unpatriotic!!!

sendin troops to war to occupy its land and to take over its religion, government and resourses!!!

is all of this just bad manners?!!

2007-08-11 17:39:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

For some people, they just want to make waves.

For most, it's because they don't like him -- or don't like his party -- so they attack. Same reason most people attack the opposition party -- in both directions.

Personally, I oppose him based on the specific criminal actions that he's admitted committing, and based on the betrayal of his oath of office for refusal to see that the laws are enforced. No partisan agenda, and I don't care what party he belongs to. My reaction to him is based on his individual actions alone.

2007-08-11 17:23:12 · answer #10 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5 5

fedest.com, questions and answers