No, I didn't. You said specifically: I can criticize my preferred party plenty; I just don't do it here. You also said: On the other hand, it's much more fun to see the howling and the squirming by offering unyielding support without a hint of doubt. To me, that indicates you are not interested in a serious discussion, but just simply antagonizing. What exactly did you intend to mean by saying its fun to see howling and squirming? No it doesn't. It gets silly and ridiculous and turns into mudslinging. For an example of a real discussion, look at discussions that involve MadMax and Deckard. Two people who are willing to discuss instead of just mudsling and make ridiculous assertions they don't even believe will have a great actual discussion. Or even basso before he lost it and went into crazy mode. You could have real discussions with people like that. When you post garbage just to bait people into silly responses, you're contributing to the crap attitude that has infested this place.
Agreed. It would be nice if there wasn't such a team mentality in politics today, like some others have mentioned. It would also be nice if people could discuss issues without namecalling.
The word "neocon" has become a slur meaning whatever the user wants it to mean. It has little relevence to actual neoconservative ideas/ideals. If you want an example, just look at your calling GHWB a "patriarch" of neoconservatism. The Bush-Baker-Scowcroft foreign policy held to just about none of the tennents of neoconservatism.
it only became a slur to be called a neocon when it became obvious how totally bad the neocons are. i would say that the policies of the bush-cheney administration represent neoconservatism pretty well. the term "neocon" is very relevant to actual neoconservative ideals - what it is NOT relevant to is republican and true conservative ideals. and bush was very much one of the patricarchs of the neocon movement. look no further than his administration, which was made up of many of them. is project for a new american century a neocon group? i would say yes. who are it's members again? who has written for them?
Irving Kristol, Bill's father, is the founder, or at least co-founder, of the neo-conservative "movement."
The only crap attitude detectable here is yours. If people make silly responses, that is their doing not mine. How Democratic of you to blame me though. My positions are not bizarre. At worst they are cited as identical to President Bush's. You also accused me of posting things I don't believe: How about a discussion of ideas instead of thoughts? What's wrong with that?
So you are saying that people like the Chinese posters and Republicans take a defensive position because to have a pragmatic discussion in which they admit to weaknesses of their own party will be a sign of admitting losing? What? I find that ridiculous. If you can't discuss a position and can't recognize that nothing is absolute, nothing is as clear - then that's weak. Chinese posters all denying that China has done wrong in Tibet is laughable. Absolutely laughable. And the same is not to critque Bush or assume that anyone who critques Bush is a die-hard liberal. While I do think that the Chinese posters secretly know the errors of China, and that giddyup and co. do feel embarrassed by Bush and may not support him as much as they represent....I still find the lack of critque against their man to be a bit peculiar. It's not even a big deal to do so...it smacks of insecurity. However; it would be more interesting to debate those guys if they could admit in some areas because then you actually find that debates wouldn't turn into pissing contests but instead actually be of substance - since they aren't based on defending a position at all costs.
Ah...I think a lot of your posts are to get a rise out of liberals...more then anyone else. Your timing and posts...it's meant to provoke a reaction. I don't condemn that in any sense - especially if it brings you some pleasure. But you'd think to mix it up ya know...otherwise it gets a bit predictable and makes your posts not so interesting to read. It's like trying to argue with a Christian Evangelest - you don't do it - when they approach you, you just try to get away. It's no fun to debate unless there is something dynamic about your stances. So if fealty is something you don't like in your opponents, then why do you espouse it so much? Yeah, there are some really really irrational liberals...but why be their counterparts? Just ignore them - I do.
Really, Arlen Spector is a great senator in my opinion, much better then Chuck Schumer. Why is Bush such a favorite of yours? And what do you see as his flaws? I mean...do you agree he's rather incompetent at everything he's done?
Go ahead and try - criticize your own party here...see what happens...you'll find actually that it will be your fellow republicans who will label you a liberal! Bush is a bane on the republican party right now - that's a fact. I don't know why he still garners so much support - when clearly he's a failed leader. People can make excuses and defend him - but the numbers and results don't lie - the country sees him as a crappy leader.
You know what is rarer than Republican's posting negative things about Bush? Democrats posting positive things about Bush.
