• 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

Imagine that. Writing a memoir AFTER your presidency.

Obama wrote his first one after finishing third grade.

Still making well thought out, intelligent attacks against Obama eh? ;)
 
I am known for my intolerance...

Okay?

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.

You're atypical, which is my point. I know quite a lot of Democrats and none of them self-identify as a "liberal", and the ones who do are more conservative than George Bush, thus the label no longer applies to them, as it has been hijacked by quasi-marxists and uber-leftist drones.

Hilarious!

JFK wouldn't have recognized the Democratic party or contemporary liberalism. If you disagree, then you should be laughing at yourself.
 
Still making well thought out, intelligent attacks against Obama eh? ;)

I'm glad we have a president who was smart enough to write a memoir in the third grade.
 
Imagine that. Writing a memoir AFTER your presidency.

Obama wrote his first one after finishing third grade.

They were different subjects.

You should know better than that.
 
JFK wouldn't have recognized the Democratic party or contemporary liberalism. If you disagree, then you should be laughing at yourself.

You still haven't defined "contemporary liberalism."
 
Imagine that. Writing a memoir AFTER your presidency.

Obama wrote his first one after finishing third grade.

I wonder which book will sell better?:2razz:
 
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.

Good observation. I'm sure we will get enough treatments of that. I want to see a bit of a dichotomy of God vs. History, because he was incredibly public with both of those subjects with regard to difficult decisions he brought up. You know, one divine or abstractly divine versus some man-made interpretation of events or a stand-alone force justifying or destroying one's actions.
 
You still haven't defined "contemporary liberalism."

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

You're reading far too much into it. The reality is, we signed our souls over to the liberal overlords for the killer perks - an awesome solar-powered fruit dehydrator/pot drying machine and organic, free-range tofu for life.
 
You're reading far too much into it. The reality is, we signed our souls over to the liberal overlords for the killer perks - an awesome solar-powered fruit dehydrator/pot drying machine and organic, free-range tofu for life.

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

Besides the problem of presumptive history you are creating, I would say it would be incredibly difficult to suggest that he could not be along the lines of Lieberman if perhaps not more liberal (I do not side with the feelings of many liberals who are somehow absolutely convinced Kennedy would have gotten the United States out of Vietnam). There are plenty of Democrats of the Truman/Kennedy variety who have stayed in the Democratic party, not necessarily because the Republicans have little to offer them in terms of political culture, but also because various positions of their would be seen as far too liberal for the Republican party. Does this mean that this prevents them from endorsing a Republican party over a Democratic Party? No, and that would be obvious if you knew my academic obsession, but it does make one pause with making such statements so confidently.
 
Last edited:
Quasi-Marxist statism and coercive populism as espoused by Democratic elites, leftist academics, media whores, and liberal ideologues who roam the internet and blogosphere.

Oh, well no wonder nobody identifies with it. There aren't many of those.

So what's the point of attacking it in the first place? Who cares about those people?
 
Okay?



You're atypical, which is my point. I know quite a lot of Democrats and none of them self-identify as a "liberal", and the ones who do are more conservative than George Bush, thus the label no longer applies to them, as it has been hijacked by quasi-marxists and uber-leftist drones.



JFK wouldn't have recognized the Democratic party or contemporary liberalism. If you disagree, then you should be laughing at yourself.

Actually, I am not atypical. It's just that ideologues have a hard time with accepting anything that is not how they view the world already.

Reagan would not have recognized the Republican party today, nor conservatism. Your point is? I do find it amusing you did not notice the hilarious sentence I bolded.
 
"Liberal" has become the biggest straw man in history.
 
Besides the problem of presumptive history you are creating, I would say it would be incredibly difficult to suggest that he could not be along the lines of Lieberman.

Yes, Lieberman. The man who is a pariah in liberal circles and an independent. Gee, how strange that a Kennedy-style Democrat would be forced out of the party and derided by "liberals"...

There are plenty of Democrats of the Truman/Kennedy variety who have stayed in the Democratic party...

Like who? And if this is true, they certainly wield little to no influence over the party.

...not necessarily because the Republicans have little to offer them in terms of political culture, but also because various positions of their would be seen as far too liberal for the Republican party. Does this mean that this prevents them from endorsing a Republican party over a Democratic Party? No, and that would be obvious if you knew my academic obsession, but it does make one pause with making such statements so confidently.

There are more options than Democrat or Republican.
 
Oh, well no wonder nobody identifies with it. There aren't many of those.

So what's the point of attacking it in the first place? Who cares about those people?

Silly person. Our President is of this persuasion, as is the speaker and Senate majority leader. Your inability to recognize this simple fact is not my problem.
 
Silly person. Our President is of this persuasion, as is the speaker and Senate majority leader.

No they aren't.

Your inability to recognize this simple fact is not my problem.

If you're too lazy to debate, just say so.
 
Yes, Lieberman. The man who is a pariah in liberal circles and an independent. Gee, how strange that a Kennedy-style Democrat would be forced out of the party and derided by "liberals"...



Like who? And if this is true, they certainly wield little to no influence over the party.



There are more options than Democrat or Republican.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I am not atypical.

Actually, you are.

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

gcvrk6v1yky1kpfyiqjhvw.gif


?Conservatives? Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

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.

It's just that ideologues have a hard time with accepting anything that is not how they view the world already.

Reagan would not have recognized the Republican party today, nor conservatism. Your point is? I do find it amusing you did not notice the hilarious sentence I bolded.

Liberal ideologues, especially...
 
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.

Don't you get tired of pulling stuff out of your ass? Come on, you can do better than this.
 
No they aren't.



If you're too lazy to debate, just say so.

If I thought you were capable of debating without resorting to blatant intellectual dishonesty, then I would have no problem engaging you.
 
If I thought you were capable of debating without resorting to blatant intellectual dishonesty, then I would have no problem engaging you.

Lazy excuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom