a serious response to a serious liberaliar
HeeHaw has posted a comment to my post the truth only hurts when it should. His comments raise some very important points, and, quite unintentionally I'm sure, he has provided us with a very clear illustration of the dishonesty that is inherent in the liberal worldview. His comments deserve a serious response.
HeeHaw says that setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is not surrender. That's a lie. Setting a timetable for withdrawal is surrender because it doesn't provide for victory. We can't leave Iraq before we win. Leaving before we win, by definition, is surrender.
HeeHaw says we need to set an exit plan. He's wrong. We need to set a victory plan. Do you notice how liberals absolutely refuse to discuss victory? It almost makes you think that they're rooting for the terrorists!
HeeHaw says we can't stay in Iraq forever. I agree. If the Congressional Liberaliars would quit undermining the war effort, we could win, secure the peace and get out.
HeeHaw goes into a somewhat incoherent rant about the terms "offense" and "defense." As a certifiable liberaliar, he clearly doesn't understand that, by going on the offensive and taking the fight to the enemy where they live, we are defending our homeland and preventing bloodshed on our soil. Anyone who is actually seeking victory will have no trouble understanding that very simple concept.
HeeHaw says that serious discussion gets lost in all of the political polarization. I agree. I hope he will join me in asking liberaliars all across America to stop the political shenanigans and unite with conservatives in seeking victory.
HeeHaw gets mad when conservatives use the word "treason" to describe America's traitorous liberaliars. What other word would be more appropriate to describe people who are hell bent on securing America's defeat? How should I describe the people who are rooting for the terrorists to win and who are undermining our troops?
HeeHaw criticizes my use of the word "liberaliar." Well, HeeHaw, your posted comment was chock full of lies and you're a liberal, so what should I call you? The liberals in Congress say they support the troops, but their actions show deliberate intent to undermine those same troops, so, by definition, they are Liberal Liars. American liberals want our troops to be defeated in order to hurt the GOP at the polls in 2008, but they don't want to "own" that defeat. That's why Congressional Pelosi-Crats won't defund the war. They will, however, use every deceitful trick in the book to ensure that our troops are defeated. Their public displays of deceit show them to be liars.
You, HeeHaw, are the very definition of a liberaliar, and so are the rest of your cohorts in the Treason Party.
HeeHaw says that setting a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq is not surrender. That's a lie. Setting a timetable for withdrawal is surrender because it doesn't provide for victory. We can't leave Iraq before we win. Leaving before we win, by definition, is surrender.
HeeHaw says we need to set an exit plan. He's wrong. We need to set a victory plan. Do you notice how liberals absolutely refuse to discuss victory? It almost makes you think that they're rooting for the terrorists!
HeeHaw says we can't stay in Iraq forever. I agree. If the Congressional Liberaliars would quit undermining the war effort, we could win, secure the peace and get out.
HeeHaw goes into a somewhat incoherent rant about the terms "offense" and "defense." As a certifiable liberaliar, he clearly doesn't understand that, by going on the offensive and taking the fight to the enemy where they live, we are defending our homeland and preventing bloodshed on our soil. Anyone who is actually seeking victory will have no trouble understanding that very simple concept.
HeeHaw says that serious discussion gets lost in all of the political polarization. I agree. I hope he will join me in asking liberaliars all across America to stop the political shenanigans and unite with conservatives in seeking victory.
HeeHaw gets mad when conservatives use the word "treason" to describe America's traitorous liberaliars. What other word would be more appropriate to describe people who are hell bent on securing America's defeat? How should I describe the people who are rooting for the terrorists to win and who are undermining our troops?
HeeHaw criticizes my use of the word "liberaliar." Well, HeeHaw, your posted comment was chock full of lies and you're a liberal, so what should I call you? The liberals in Congress say they support the troops, but their actions show deliberate intent to undermine those same troops, so, by definition, they are Liberal Liars. American liberals want our troops to be defeated in order to hurt the GOP at the polls in 2008, but they don't want to "own" that defeat. That's why Congressional Pelosi-Crats won't defund the war. They will, however, use every deceitful trick in the book to ensure that our troops are defeated. Their public displays of deceit show them to be liars.
You, HeeHaw, are the very definition of a liberaliar, and so are the rest of your cohorts in the Treason Party.
posted by hondo at 11:53 AM
4 Comments:
Gee Hondo, I didn’t mean to upset you. I guess that I have, but do you really have to come back at me and call me a liar?
When I said that setting a timetable for withdrawl is not surrender, that is my oppinion. If you disagree, then that is your oppinion. Those oppinions are not lies. Can’t you tell the difference? I think you just like throwing the accusation of “liar” to anyone whom you disagree with. And especially when you are unable to articulate your position.
No one is rooting for the terrorist. That is a ridiculous statement. Hondo, you really have lost the plot. If you find simple definitions of offense and defense incoherant, then maybe you shouldn’t include such discussions on your blog (You did realize that was what Giuliani was talking about didn’t you? Or did you find Giuliani’s “rant” incoherent too?).
Also, not sure why you think I get mad about conservatives calling out charges of “treason.” I don’t. I just laugh because it’s so outrageous. It is also why Americans don’t take the conservative party serious anymore. You guys have become increasingly ridiculous. And the way you conservatives have screwed it all up since Clinton left office, you’ll be lucky if a conservative wins the presidency within the next 52 years. (Do you think I should make a promise about what bumper sticker to put on my Honda? I didn’t think so)
And my only criticism of your use of the term “liberaliars” is if you indiscriminately apply it to all liberals (another sign that you have lost touch Hondo). But you didn’t clarify. You know Hondo, you really should concentrate on scripture and veer away from political commentary. I think you have missed something really basic in the Bible. And I find it a real shame when people like you thrive on hatred. Your bad will to others trumps any thoughtful political contribution you might have. I hope you have the courage to truly open your heart one day.
Hondo,
One more thing about Giuliani issue you may find intersting and wish to comment upon:
"Dear Mayor Giuliani:
Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?
The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?
Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.
Gary Hart
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)"
Hee-haw, you're wasting your breath--Hondo lives in Lala Land, and nothing even hinting at reality breaks through the god-haze...
Sad, really...
HeeHaw--You say that a timetable for withdrawal is not surrender. That is a lie. Look the word "surrender" up in the dictionary. You will see that any timetable for withdrawal that isn't based upon victory is indeed "surrender."
By the way, that's not a "difference of opinion." That is truth vs fiction. A difference of opinion is if we disagree on whether or not the '75 Reds are the greatest baseball team of all time. Lying about the meaning of the word "surrender" is just another liberal lie.
HeeHaw, no rational person could come to any other conclusion than America's liberals are rooting for the terrorists. America's liberaliars want us to leave Iraq today, even though the defense, intelligence and security experts of the world are almost unanimous in their belief that such a withdrawal would cause a holocaust in Iraq and a more dangerous situation here on American soil. Of course, liberals don't care. They are rooting for the terrorists.
When Democrats in the House try to unconstitutionally usurp the wartime powers of the president in an attempt to force defeat, that is treason. If the Democrats had any principles, they would just vote to defund the war, and the troops would come home. That would be a bad decision, but at least it would be legal. The liberaliars of Congress have chosen a different path. Aid and abet our enemies in the hopes that America will lose and that the blame will blow back on Bush. That's treason. If you call it anything else, or attempt to disguise it as just a difference of opinions, then you are a liar. A liberaliar.
Post a Comment
<< Home