soccerboy22
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 10,721
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Location
- A warm place
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
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.
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...
If you want further research by historians declaring it, yes you will! :mrgreen:
As if we needed more evidence that he never should have been elected.
So what's the definition of "contemporary liberalism?" And who came up with it, contemporary liberals, or you?
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.
Would the other guy have been better?
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.
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...
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...
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?
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:
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.
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.
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...?
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...
I am known for my intolerance...
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.
Hilarious!
Stating the obvious is hardly needed.
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
Then you can provide an example of you not being intolerant of opposing view points.....
No you are a "Bushie"! duh. :lamo
I get it from both sides.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?