Oh! Oh my...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4856104-111675,00.html>Bush goes public on service record to ward off critics</a></h1></center>

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Wednesday February 11, 2004

The Guardian

<blockquote>The White House was forced into an embarrassing defence of George Bush's Vietnam record last night, amid conservative unease with his administration and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In an attempt to lay to rest controversy about his military service, it released 30-year-old personnel records which officials claim prove that he did fulfill his duties to his country.

But it appears to have stirred further questions about the claim that he failed to finish his National Guard service.

In a further blow yesterday, <b>Bill O'Reilly</b>, a high-profile anchor on the rightwing Fox News Channel, said <b>he had lost faith in Mr Bush's pre-war claims about Iraq</b>.</blockquote>

Bill O'Reilly has lost faith!?! That's a bit like the Pope stripping off his robes and dancing about in women's undies. Whoda thunk it?

When they start feeding on their own, its all over. Dubbyuh's headed for the bottom of the food chain.

 

[jimnyc]

Funny how he is called an idiot and that he's on "faux news", and completely dismissed. Now when the worms find some dirt he is their savior.

I would say laughable, but it's not, it's sad.

 

[William Joyce]

Ride's over, Dubya. Too bad you weren't crafty enough to figure out that it was the Jews who hung you out to dry. Dumb white men: the fewer of them, the better. Our race has too many suckers anyway.

 

[MtnBiker]

One generic answer is all you need. Just copy and paste. Think of all the time you would save. You say the same thing everytime anyway.

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
One generic answer is all you need. Just copy and paste. Think of all the time you would save. You say the same thing everytime anyway.

Didn't you say that already?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by William Joyce
Ride's over, Dubya. Too bad you weren't crafty enough to figure out that it was the Jews who hung you out to dry. Dumb white men: the fewer of them, the better. Our race has too many suckers anyway.

Racist...Antisemite...What other personalities do you have lurking behing this beady little eyes?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
<center><h1><a href=http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4856104-111675,00.html>Bush goes public on service record to ward off critics</a></h1></center>

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Wednesday February 11, 2004

The Guardian

<blockquote>The White House was forced into an embarrassing defence of George Bush's Vietnam record last night, amid conservative unease with his administration and its conduct of the war in Iraq.

In an attempt to lay to rest controversy about his military service, it released 30-year-old personnel records which officials claim prove that he did fulfill his duties to his country.

But it appears to have stirred further questions about the claim that he failed to finish his National Guard service.

In a further blow yesterday, <b>Bill O'Reilly</b>, a high-profile anchor on the rightwing Fox News Channel, said <b>he had lost faith in Mr Bush's pre-war claims about Iraq</b>.</blockquote>

Bill O'Reilly has lost faith!?! That's a bit like the Pope stripping off his robes and dancing about in women's undies. Whoda thunk it?

When they start feeding on their own, its all over. Dubbyuh's headed for the bottom of the food chain.

You obviously don't watch the Oreilly show. If you thought Oreilly was a lockstep Bushy before this, then you're making comments from a place of ignorance.

 

[cptpwichita]

yeah liberals certainly have a hard time understanding how people could actually think for themselves instead of being just a bunch of brain-washed zombie,jim jones kool-aid drinking, tow the party line no matter how illogical,bed-wetting liberals like themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

Heck if you think Orielly is a true blue conservative you havent watched the show or have no idea what a conservative stands for. In my personal opinion he takes himself too seriously.

 

[JROTCcadet]

yeah liberals certainly have a hard time understanding how people could actually think for themselves instead of being just a bunch of brain-washed zombie,jim jones kool-aid drinking, tow the party line no matter how illogical,bed-wetting liberals like themselves.

You know....it's sad to think that someone could condemn an entire side of the political spectrum out of sheer ignorance. If we want to play that game, I could say that because Facism is an extreme right wing point of view, that all conservatives support Hitler. I don't believe that why? Because it's impossible to draw a conclusion of an entire catagory of people based upon one quality (i.e. being liberal or conservative). Plus, since liberalism is (at its very core) an openness to change, you're obviously not too up to par on how any part of politics works. It's actually the balance between conservatives and liberals that makes this country work (read The Federalist Papers #10). Oh, by the way, your own government is on the liberal side of the spectrum in the grand scheme of things.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
You know....it's sad to think that someone could condemn an entire side of the political spectrum out of sheer ignorance. If we want to play that game, I could say that because Facism is an extreme right wing point of view, that all conservatives support Hitler. I don't believe that why? Because it's impossible to draw a conclusion of an entire catagory of people based upon one quality (i.e. being liberal or conservative). Plus, since liberalism is (at its very core) an openness to change, you're obviously not too up to par on how any part of politics works. It's actually the balance between conservatives and liberals that makes this country work (read The Federalist Papers #10). Oh, by the way, your own government is on the liberal side of the spectrum in the grand scheme of things.

Yes and no..... our liberalism is a Constitutional liberalism. Not the rampart, democratic liberalism of the day.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
You know....it's sad to think that someone could condemn an entire side of the political spectrum out of sheer ignorance. If we want to play that game, I could say that because Facism is an extreme right wing point of view, that all conservatives support Hitler. I don't believe that why? Because it's impossible to draw a conclusion of an entire catagory of people based upon one quality (i.e. being liberal or conservative). Plus, since liberalism is (at its very core) an openness to change, you're obviously not too up to par on how any part of politics works. It's actually the balance between conservatives and liberals that makes this country work (read The Federalist Papers #10). Oh, by the way, your own government is on the liberal side of the spectrum in the grand scheme of things.

There is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern American liberalism. The former is the mindset of most of our founding fathers: a political view that said that government is responsible to the people, and not the other way around. Modern day conservatives have a lot in common with classical liberalism. What people mean when they say "liberal" today is someone who believes in greater governmental involvement in people's lives, higher taxes, and limited wealth redistribution by the government (as opposed to communism's total wealth redistribution scheme). Same word, different meaning based ont eh context.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
There is a big difference between classical liberalism and modern American liberalism. The former is the mindset of most of our founding fathers: a political view that said that government is responsible to the people, and not the other way around. Modern day conservatives have a lot in common with classical liberalism. What people mean when they say "liberal" today is someone who believes in greater governmental involvement in people's lives, higher taxes, and limited wealth redistribution by the government (as opposed to communism's total wealth redistribution scheme). Same word, different meaning based ont eh context.

Yeppers!

 

[JROTCcadet]

There's a fundemental difference between the political spectrum of a country and the political spectrum as a whole. You have to look at the big picture: the definition of liberalism can't change, only the degree to which it is necessary. It's true that many people misinterpret the term liberalism today, but that doesn't mean that we should perpetuate the misunderstanding. You're certainly correct in saying that modern conservatives have a lot in common with former liberals (i.e. Adam Smith was being liberal in calling for lassiez faire economics), but that's because as policies are introduced, they are no longer considered 'liberal'. For example, liberalism (a desire for change) might get a new idea introduced into the policy of a nation. Then, conservatism (a desire to retain traditional policies) keeps that policy in the nation. Thus, old liberals are modern conservatives, but that doesn't change the definition, just the catagorization of ideas. You've mistaken cause for effect, I'm afraid.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
There's a fundemental difference between the political spectrum of a country and the political spectrum as a whole. You have to look at the big picture: the definition of liberalism can't change, only the degree to which it is necessary. It's true that many people misinterpret the term liberalism today, but that doesn't mean that we should perpetuate the misunderstanding. You're certainly correct in saying that modern conservatives have a lot in common with former liberals (i.e. Adam Smith was being liberal in calling for lassiez faire economics), but that's because as policies are introduced, they are no longer considered 'liberal'. For example, liberalism (a desire for change) might get a new idea introduced into the policy of a nation. Then, conservatism (a desire to retain traditional policies) keeps that policy in the nation. Thus, old liberals are modern conservatives, but that doesn't change the definition, just the catagorization of ideas. You've mistaken cause for effect, I'm afraid.

I would agree with you, but just a couple of years ago we thought the definition of marriage couldn't be changed either.....

Many scholars agree that the definition of liberalism has been changed over the years. Go argue with all those scholars.

 

[JROTCcadet]

Alright, saying "scholars agree..." gets on my nerves. What scholars? I have no doubt that some political scholars think that the defintion of liberalism has changed, but some scholars think that lasseiz faire works (I seem to like using that as an example today..), and I disagree with them. So I really have no problem arguing with these phantom scholars, at least until you provide some sources to back up your arguments.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by JROTCcadet
Alright, saying "scholars agree..." gets on my nerves. What scholars? I have no doubt that some political scholars think that the defintion of liberalism has changed, but some scholars think that lasseiz faire works (I seem to like using that as an example today..), and I disagree with them. So I really have no problem arguing with these phantom scholars, at least until you provide some sources to back up your arguments.

Read Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom". He covers all this quite well.

 

[JROTCcadet]

Thank ye much for the suggestion. I'll get to reading.