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.
Unions do try to influence people to vote democratic. :shrug:
So do most groups. One example that springs to mind in the news lately is the Tea Party.
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...
I am not forced to be in a tea party, nor am I forced to pay dues.
If I thought you were capable of debating without resorting to blatant intellectual dishonesty, then I would have no problem engaging you.
I turned down a chance to join a union, as did the people I work with.
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.
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...
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!!!
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
The group of shrill morons who have been acting childishly and idiotically since the moment George Bush was elected President.
"liberals" who frequent internet forums are disconnected from America; they live in a self-imposed bubble of elitism and intolerance.
"liberals" are either confused (they have the wrong label) or intolerant (internet liberals, hardliner leftist academics, media whores, government cronies, etc.).
That people who self-identify with contemporary liberalism are intolerant, i.e., they are derisive and dismissive of opposing viewpoints.
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.
Quasi-Marxist statism and coercive populism as espoused by Democratic elites, leftist academics, media whores, and liberal ideologues who roam the internet and blogosphere.
Is any of that in any way similar to the nonsense the righties around here say about Obama? :2wave: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.
Moderator's Warning: |
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.
Bravo! Post of the year.....Nuh Uh!
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.
No not you. :doh
:2razz:
So then he was right, except for being wrong.
So then he was right, except for being wrong.
So what was I wrong about? Did you read the opening page?
j-mac
George W. Bush was one of our great Presidents. His book should be enlightening.
Then again, when one starts a thread like this, not much should be expected to come of it.
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?