Andrew wrote:Let’s see here...
1. No...unless regional security is at risk
So in your attempt to differentiate yourself from other warmongers, you recite the oldest warmonger talking point in history.
Vietnam dead-enders opposed withdrawal by warning of destabilization/security. More recently, Iraq and Afghanistan defenders did the same.
Rooting for military intervention in a Syrian civil war is not a liberal value. Sorry.
Andrew wrote:2. No...I point out Wiki’s current bias..
And what bias would that be? Be specific. Since the Podesta/Hillary emails, Wiki has released files on everything from the CIA to ICE to Amazon to the Catholic Church. Prior to 2016, they released files on Guantanamo Bay, Sony movie studios, and Sarah Palin. The only reason you criticize the messenger (in this case Wikileaks) is because you can't substantively refute the message. You are now doing the same thing with the Barr report. When Daniel Ellsberg bravely released the Pentagon Papers in the 70s, Nixon and his allies attacked him as a communist. Using right wing tactics to smear truth tellers is not a liberal value. Sorry.
Andrew wrote:...and the fact Faux News is state media
And yet MSNBC and CNN both feature former intel officials like CIA Director John Brennan, CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. As recently as a few weeks ago, Brennan was on the airwaves teasing viewers with the prospect of Trump family member indictments which never came. In effect, every cable news channel - except Fox - became a house organ for retired spooks. Russiagate skeptics, like Glenn Greenwald, were allowed on Fox but banned from other networks. For the first time in their history, Fox almost lived up to the slogan of being fair and balanced.
Andrew wrote:3. No...unless a few loons are running amuck.
A "loon" is just a derogatory term for someone whose politics you disagreed with. Rather than beat them with facts, you engaged in censorship. Several posters, like Boomchild, treated you respectfully and engaged you in actual conversation. In return, they were called names and got blocked anyway. Stifling dissent and eliminating opposing views is not a liberal value. Sorry.
Andrew wrote:4. No...and WTF?? Idolise? You’ve got a screw loose on that one. Just patently false.
You called Bush Sr.
"a pretty decent guy I think." As I said at the time of your fawning post:
Over 8 women have gone on record saying that Bush Sr. groped them.
He launched the Gulf war over BS circumstances and slaughtered civilians.
He pardoned officials involved with Iran Contra and swept it under the rug.
He escalated the war on drugs.
He ordered the invasion of Panama killing more civilians.
He banned HIV+ people from entering the USA.
As CIA director, he supported state terrorismEulogizing Bush Sr. is not a liberal value. Sorry.
Andrew wrote:5. No...I believe certain aspects of many sources.
You mean certain aspects that your top-secret SIGINT sources transmit to you via crackerjack decoder ring, right?
All you promote is debunked or unverifiable shit.
Ex. "the dossier has been almost entirely verified" (WRONG)
Ex. Manafort met Assange (WRONG)
Ex. "Trump is a kiddie fucker" (Uhh what?)
Andrew wrote:And Putin is trying to disrupt the west. As clearly stated by every security agent on earth.
That's a very sober and rational sounding assessment. It's also quite different from the hysterical (and downright deranged) rhetoric you have been spewing.
Ex.
"If my government was being controlled by any other power, I'd be raising hell about it."Ex.
"At what point will you fucking people wake up and say enough? When the gas chambers are opened up? When it’s USA, Russia and North Korea against the rest of the world? You do know he’s Putin’s puppet right? "Ex.
"Russia is corrupting your entire democracy and you'd rather ignore that like your bought and paid for El Presidente is, or pick a despot dictator who murders anyone that opposes him...."
