• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Memoir by George W Bush to be published in November

I agree about Lieberman. But we can also consider the "Blue Dog Democrats", which is hardly a great descriptor of leaders with various positions. The perception is one of being the moderate. In reality, moderates hold a great deal of power when, especially when your own party is in power.

Well, moderates are not liberals, they're moderates. I'm not talking about them.

A lot of the individuals I study, like the late Senators Henry Jackson and Daniel P. Moynihan stayed with the Democratic party, but from time to time endorsed Republican candidates and platforms, despite having significant difference of opinion with the establishment Republican manifesto, if it were to be described in such a way.

There is a somewhat justified feeling that that era of liberals have been pushed aside in favor of those more sympathetic to the New Left, but the reality is more difficult than that. Take notice with how Robert Kennedy transformed himself from a McCarthy fan and into a champion of the New Left against the war in Vietnam.

Do we know what path John Kennedy would have chosen? No. Do we know what path he likely would have chosen in the short-run? More-so.

I got no beef with moderate Democrats and blue-dogs. I know a lot of them, and they're mostly just regular folks, salt of the Earth type people; none of them are apprised of "liberal" ideology, though, which is my real concern.
 
Actually, you are.



Most registered Democrats are "moderates" or simply abstain from assuming an ideological label. Most Americans don't even understand "liberal" ideology; they just vote Democrat because their union rep tells them to, or because their parents were Democrats, or because the media has fed them a bunch of nonsense about hope and change.



Liberal ideologues, especially...

You realize that your chart does not show what you claimed, right? If you would have went just a little further down, you would have discovered that the party is basically split between moderates and liberals, 38 % top 40 %, or roughly within the margin of error.

Ideologues are ideologues, no matter the party or lean.
 
If I thought you were capable of debating without resorting to blatant intellectual dishonesty, then I would have no problem engaging you.

Irony, you are good at it.
 
Well, moderates are not liberals, they're moderates. I'm not talking about them.



I got no beef with moderate Democrats and blue-dogs. I know a lot of them, and they're mostly just regular folks, salt of the Earth type people; none of them are apprised of "liberal" ideology, though, which is my real concern.

The thing is that many of us centrists, moderates, whatever, to some extent still view ourselves under that liberal tradition, but we acknowledge that there is something no longer there that we like.
 
You signed yourself over to an ideology that is totally at odds with our Constitution and the basic principles of our founding, which is why you have to resort to intellectual dishonesty and character assassination in order to twist and distort any dialog you take part in...

Let's discuss intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, the twisting and distortion of dialog, and childish insults, shall we? Oh, and let's not forget this pot calling the kettle black theme you've got going...

Yes, liberals are intolerant. Us adults understand it quite well.

Perhaps if your criticisms we substance-based, we'd be less inclined to point out your childish hatred of opposing viewpoints.

K-thx!!!

"Liberals are intolerant" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, pot/kettle
"Us adults understand it" = childish insults
"your hatred of opposing viewpoints" = twisting and distortion of dialog, pot/kettle

Anyone who identifies with contemporary liberalism is intolerant by definition. I don't know any Democrats who self-identify as "liberal", anyway; the people who do assume that designation are mostly partisan Obamaphiles who hijacked the label from JFK

"contemporary liberals are intolerant by definition" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, pot/kettle
"partisan Obamaphiles" = childish insults

The group of shrill morons who have been acting childishly and idiotically since the moment George Bush was elected President.

"shrill morons" = character assassination, childish insults, twisting and distortion of dialog
"acting childishly and idiotically" = intellectual dishonesty, twisting and distortion of dialog

"liberals" who frequent internet forums are disconnected from America; they live in a self-imposed bubble of elitism and intolerance.

"disconnected from America" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination
"self-imposed bubble of elitism and intolerance" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle

"liberals" are either confused (they have the wrong label) or intolerant (internet liberals, hardliner leftist academics, media whores, government cronies, etc.).

"confused" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults
"intolerant" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle

That people who self-identify with contemporary liberalism are intolerant, i.e., they are derisive and dismissive of opposing viewpoints.

"intolerant" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"derisive and dismissive of opposing viewpoints" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle

contemporary liberalism - they are a conformist group of ideologues who follow the Democratic elites and academic leftists lockstep. I think their intolerance stems from their ideological rigidity, which necessitates intellectual contradictions and hypocrisy, which further necessitates character assassination and childish insults as a substitute for substance-based criticisms.

"conformist" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"ideologues" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"follow the Democratic elites and academic leftists lockstep" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
intolerance" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"ideological rigidity" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"intellectual contradictions and hypocrisy" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, pot/kettle
"character assassination and childish insults as a substitute for substance-based criticisms" = intellectual dishonesty, character assassination, childish insults, twisting and distortion of dialog, pot/kettle

Quasi-Marxist statism and coercive populism as espoused by Democratic elites, leftist academics, media whores, and liberal ideologues who roam the internet and blogosphere.

"Quasi-Marxist statism" = intellectual dishonesty, twisting and distortion of dialog
"coercive populism" = intellectual dishonesty, twisting and distortion of dialog
"elites" = intellectual dishonesty, twisting and distortion of dialog, pot/kettle

Perhaps if your criticisms were substance-based, we'd be less inclined to point out your childish hatred of opposing viewpoints. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Criticize? Sure. But a complete mischaracterization of someone is another story altogether. Sure, we may not like him, but the fact is that Bush is a voracious reader of serious books and is not the illiterate dunce that some have portrayed him as.
Is any of that in any way similar to the nonsense the righties around here say about Obama? :2wave:
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is not about liberalism and the broadscale insults and derailment has gone far enough. Get it back on topic and more focused on that, minus the broad insults especially those directed specifically towards other posters, or thread bans are going to be handed out
 
From what I read so far it breaks down like this....

{Liberal} Bush was a dummy, dumb, dumbhead.....:2razz:

but don't say anything about Obama you aren't allowed.....{/Liberal}


Breaks down to really good at dishing it out, but just can't take it.


j-mac
 
From what I read so far it breaks down like this....

{Liberal} Bush was a dummy, dumb, dumbhead.....:2razz:

but don't say anything about Obama you aren't allowed.....{/Liberal}


Breaks down to really good at dishing it out, but just can't take it.


j-mac

Not even remotely.
 
Actually other than 1984, he's hit is on the head. :shrug:



Then again, when one starts a thread like this, not much should be expected to come of it.

Yeah, he really nailed me....
 
So then he was right, except for being wrong.





In the spirit of the likes of ADK he was right. He was wrong in the spirit of 1984, so technically you are right, but there is something to what he did say. :doh
 
George W. Bush was one of our great Presidents. His book should be enlightening.
 
George W. Bush was one of our great Presidents. His book should be enlightening.

Wow. I've heard of setting the bar low, but jeez......
 
Then again, when one starts a thread like this, not much should be expected to come of it.

Aside from your personal attacks, even after Z's warning, I haven't seen you address any of the specifics of the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom