Can a modern day "liberal" also be a "patriot"?

actually.... it really has little to do with "reverence" for military service.... it has to do with an understanding that doing well on the battle field doesn't necessarily mean that the individual would perform well as the head of our nation.... they are different, and in some ways, mutually exclusive skill sets.
 
maineman said:
you don't see me goggling wes clark, do you?
Click to expand...

LOL.


ThreeGoggles.jpg


I think I know why you won't, Commander.
 
maineman said:
actually.... it really has little to do with "reverence" for military service.... it has to do with an understanding that doing well on the battle field doesn't necessarily mean that the individual would perform well as the head of our nation.... they are different, and in some ways, mutually exclusive skill sets.
Click to expand...

So military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency...unless a Democrat candidate happens to have it, naturally.
 
maineman said:
actually.... it really has little to do with "reverence" for military service.... it has to do with an understanding that doing well on the battle field doesn't necessarily mean that the individual would perform well as the head of our nation.... they are different, and in some ways, mutually exclusive skill sets.
Click to expand...

Big Money said:
So military experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency...unless a Democrat candidate happens to have it, naturally.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
I have never said that military experience was a prerequisite for any party's candidate.
Click to expand...

Big Money said:
Did someone say that you did, Commander?
Click to expand...

so when you quoted my post and then made that statement, that had nothing to do with me? why did you quote me in the first place, then, you silly immature little twit?
 
so you can't answer the question? why I am not surprised.

You're just into playing games.... when you want to even attempt a serious discussion, let me know.
 
maineman said:
Please link me up to Clark's comments about McCain so that I can refresh my memory. I have no recollection of anything that Clark said about that.
Click to expand...

We call this willful ignorance; however, in your case you just might be this stupid.

But this punk, General Clark has the nerve to attack McCain’s military record. Here are some of his comments he made yesterday while interviewed by Bob Schieffer from CBS Face the Nation (video):

McCain had not held executive responsibility and had not commanded troops in wartime.…I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president … He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall as a wartime commander.
 
Truth Detector said:
We call this willful ignorance; however, in your case you just might be this stupid.

But this punk, General Clark has the nerve to attack McCain’s military record. Here are some of his comments he made yesterday while interviewed by Bob Schieffer from CBS Face the Nation (video):

McCain had not held executive responsibility and had not commanded troops in wartime.…I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president … He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall as a wartime commander.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is denigrating his service...it's merely saying that he did not necessarily exhibit a "presidential" skill set. WOuldn't you agree? Does flying a jet and riding a parachute to the ground after your plane got shot out from under you have in it the skill set that a president needs?
 
Right said:
I think not.

A modern day liberal, or progressive, seeks to creatively interpret the Constitution. In truth they ignore it, usurp it, despise it. A patriot, on the other hand, is someone who reveres the Constitution, understands its original intent and meaning, and seeks to apply it to solving modern problems.

The meaning of liberalism has changed throughout US history. During the revolutionary period a liberal was someone who was against the monarchy and fought for a republican form of government. They recognized that government was a necessary evil, and that in order to minimize the evil they also had to limit the powers of the government. So they created a federal system with very limited powers and left the rest to the states, or to the people.

In the modern era, a liberal is someone who sees the Constitution as outdated. They want the federal government to have broad, unrestricted power. This power approaches that of a monarchy, of which the patriot, both then and now, fights against.
Click to expand...

I see this post is made in response to my questions; "What is a Liberal today"

The problem is you still have it wrong. You typecast a "liberal" as a Democrat Party member while also not understanding what the Democrats stand for.

"Liberal" means a lot and the question is "a lot" of what. Some say Government, some say spending, some say freedom. I'm guessing you question the Liberal Freedom party while I'll also guess you don't support gay marriage and are willing to use USA law to prevent it.

Your post is incorrect. If you took time to research what the term "Patriot" means, you would know that your post is trash. But you bring a Right Wing perspective, maybe that is all you see, maybe you miss what a Patriot is...

Recently when the Left used media to ask the public to drink more water the Right was outraged and called them Liberals that only want control. The fact is that the majority of Americans suffer from Chronic Dehydration and they wanted to spread the word about hydration.

The Right (and all the sheeple on this forum) openly fought this hydration....................................................so who is about control?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top