• 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

You may see his thoughts regarding the earlier years of Iraq and his regrets towards the execution, but nevertheleless thanking Rumsfeld for his service and so forth, and claim that the war in Iraq was entirely justified and will (and may even cite current progress of the regime) be a positive force for the middle east.

Actually my biggest interest in the whole Iraq War thing is did he feel that too much attention was focused away from Afghanistan and his thoughts on that.
 
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; if that's not what you are, then you should assume a different label, because "liberal" doesn't mean what it actually means anymore...




Lets, just pause here for some lulz.... Are you infering that the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is a liberal? :ssst:
 
So what's the definition of "contemporary liberalism?" And who came up with it, contemporary liberals, or you?

The group of shrill morons who have been acting childishly and idiotically since the moment George Bush was elected President. They can mostly be found in government, academia, the media, or on the internet; they are not like regular Democrats, who are just normal Americans that probably support their local union or who still think "liberal" is what JFK represented.

Right, because the label has been hijacked by rightwingers to mean "anything I don't like." It's absurd. Then they accuse people of "running away from the label."

This is one reason I think labels are absolutely useless anyway.

Okay, then why does it concern you? You're not a "liberal", so don't worry about it.
 
Would the other guy have been better? o_O

There were more than two people running. In any event the lesser of two evils is still evil (and in this case I don't think the argument he was less evil is very compelling. I would have bought it (maybe) at the time, but in hindsight not so much).
 
Last edited:
Lets, just pause here for some lulz.... Are you infering that the Greatness that is the Good Reverend is a liberal? :ssst:

Of course not. I have a cursory understanding of your political philosophy - I have a habit of paying attention to things... : D

I was just using the royal "you" - for people who might have taken issue with my statements.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts at being fair and bipartisan, but I think my "blanket statement" is accurate, even if it's not PC; "liberals" who frequent internet forums are disconnected from America; they live in a self-imposed bubble of elitism and intolerance.
 
Oh another thing I hope he writes about is how much his religion played, if it did at all, into his decision making. I wonder if he ever went to God for signs of advice on how to handle certain situations. Or what kind of policies or laws he tried to get passed were because of his religion in his eyes.
 
Of course not. I have a cursory understanding of your political philosophy - I have a habit of paying attention to things... : D

I was just using the royal "you" - for people who might have taken issue with my statements.

Anyway, I appreciate your efforts at being fair and bipartisan, but I think my "blanket statement" is accurate, even if it's not PC; "liberals" who frequent internet forums are disconnected from America; they live in a self-imposed bubble of elitism and intolerance.





I find many people to be intolerant and I have my own share of distaste for liberal ideology, In fact I find it repugnant for the most part. However, blanket statements like you are making about individual peoples, makes you look as foolish as the thread starter in my opinion.
 
I voted for him, twice, for the usual reason. The DEMS presented something worse than Bush.

I will be surprised if very many of the books get sold.

Surely Rush and Beck will be reading excerpts to us til we are sick of it...
 
I find many people to be intolerant and I have my own share of distaste for liberal ideology, In fact I find it repugnant for the most part. However, blanket statements like you are making about individual peoples, makes you look as foolish as the thread starter in my opinion.

Show me the exception to this rule and I will admit my idiocy; in my experience, it is true, that "liberals" are either confused (they have the wrong label) or intolerant (internet liberals, hardliner leftist academics, media whores, government cronies, etc.).

Either way, you're certainly entitled to think I'm a fool, and perhaps you are right, but I think "liberals" should be pressured to drop the label or confront their movement's BS...
 
Show me the exception to this rule and I will admit my idiocy; in my experience, it is true, that "liberals" are either confused (they have the wrong label) or intolerant (internet liberals, hardliner leftist academics, media whores, government cronies, etc.).

Either way, you're certainly entitled to think I'm a fool, and perhaps you are right, but I think "liberals" should be pressured to drop the label or confront their movement's BS...




which rule? :lamo
 
which rule? :lamo

That people who self-identify with contemporary liberalism are intolerant, i.e., they are derisive and dismissive of opposing viewpoints. If there are exceptions to this, then I haven't seen them; that, or they're assuming the wrong label...
 
That people who self-identify with contemporary liberalism are intolerant, i.e., they are derisive and dismissive of opposing viewpoints. If there are exceptions to this, then I haven't seen them; that, or they're assuming the wrong label...



So are they less tolerant that many of us who identify as "Very Conservative"?


In fact, can you link to you demonstrating this "tolerance" of thier viewpoints? :ssst:
 
Memoir by George W Bush to be published in November|WorldBBNews

Aside from the easy oxymoron of "Bush writing a book", when even Condi Rice warned his administration that, "He's not a big reader", does anybody believe Bush actually wrote a book when during his 8 years in office he probably didn't read one?

I guarantee you William Ayers didn't write it.

Expect a book as forthright as the man.

.
PS. For all the books Obama might have read, and all the papers he didn't write... I'll take the guy with common sense over a classically trained socialist any day.
 
Last edited:
So are they less tolerant that many of us who identify as "Very Conservative"?

People who identify as "very conservative" don't really fit into a well-defined group. Many of them could be the stereotypical KKK, southern racist or they could be a classical conservative in the mold of Edmund Burke; I don't see this kind of diversity in 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.

In fact, can you link to you demonstrating this "tolerance" of thier viewpoints? :ssst:

I'm not sure what you mean. One can be "intolerant" of a specific viewpoint without being intolerant of opposing viewpoints in general, which is the point I'm trying to make.
 
People who identify as "very conservative" don't really fit into a well-defined group. Many of them could be the stereotypical KKK, southern racist or they could be a classical conservative in the mold of Edmund Burke; I don't see this kind of diversity in 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.


Again conservatives never use childish insults as a substitute for substance base critisizms?


Sure we see this a lot here. This thread starter is a prime example of a partisan hack, but to suggest it is a liberal only issue. I mean come on man..... :lamo

I'm not sure what you mean. One can be "intolerant" of a specific viewpoint without being intolerant of opposing viewpoints in general, which is the point I'm trying to make.


Then you can provide an example of you not being intolerant of opposing view points..... ;)
 
I highly doubt this is true. I am an avid reader and also a full time student and can't manage to finish more than 3-4 four good sized books a month. I can't imagine running a country and reading close to 8 books a month. He was reading 2 a week? What kind of books...?

My mother and sisters are avid readers of romance novels, 8 books a month to them wouldn't be much to them.
 
Last edited:
Imagine that. Writing a memoir AFTER your presidency.

Obama wrote his first one after finishing third grade.
 
Anyone who identifies with contemporary liberalism is intolerant by definition.

I am known for my intolerance...

I don't know any Democrats who self-identify as "liberal", anyway;

I am a liberal and a democrat. You need to get out more if you have not met any one who self identifies as both.

the people who do assume that designation are mostly partisan Obamaphiles who hijacked the label from JFK; if that's not what you are, then you should assume a different label, because "liberal" doesn't mean what it actually means anymore...

Hilarious!
 
Stating the obvious is hardly needed.

Maybe for the masses uninterested or without dedication in the matter, but for historians and other policy makers, whose words will later filter through to the masses, yes it is needed.

Sorry, but for the people I know, this is the kind of thing that gives us glee. It is our one of our treasure chests. Oh well, I guess I am one of the few who actually see the use of a Presidential memoir.:roll:
 
Last edited:
Again conservatives never use childish insults as a substitute for substance base critisizms?


Sure we see this a lot here. This thread starter is a prime example of a partisan hack, but to suggest it is a liberal only issue. I mean come on man..... :lamo

I don't think I was suggesting that it's only a liberal issue, just that it is pretty much standard operating procedure for them; of course, conservatives can act petty and immature, too - I would never suggest otherwise.

Then you can provide an example of you not being intolerant of opposing view points..... ;)

I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything, but I'm not sure what you're wanting me to do here. I'm a little confused.

P.S. - Observe how our conversation has been quite cordial and constructive, and that neither of us have had to engage in intellectual dishonesty to make our points. Coincidence? I think not... : P
 
Back
Top Bottom