Sorry espn1...

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

But I'm not a liberal. It's called being a moderate and taking things for face value. If someone says something that you don't like, maybe being mature and refraining from throwing out labels would be a great idea for the future. If you don't like what I have to say, that is fine, but don't label me unless you're prepared to be labelled as an idiot, accordingly. You stay classy.

[espn1]

I didn’t label you. I just threw that out there. However I am worried now. Because, it’s designed to bring Liberals out of the wood work and you’re the only one that responded. You might want to step back and reevaluate how you’re labeling yourself. Because as of now, I don’t see you as a moderate. As for me being an Idiot, I always say if the shoe fits. One thing I do know. I’m not the one on the defensive. Sorry! I didn’t mean to hit so close to home with my post.:D :D :D

[sinton66]

Well, I can tell you for certain that Gary is not a "traditional" liberal. I've had many conversations with him on many subjects, and there are some of his convictions that simply do not go along with that tag. He believes firmly for the private ownership of guns and firmly against abortion. I've even seen him openly admit when he's wrong. ( GASP!!!) He is opinionated, hard-headed, argumentative, verbose, and sometimes closed-minded, but he is not a "liberal" in the strict sense of the word. He sails a moderate ship with a noticible list to port.;)

He also would argue with a fencepost just for grins.:D

Now, Gary, don't say I've never leapt to your defense on here.:D

[CenTexSports]

After reading the last post and spending some time thinking about it, I believe you may be right about BBDE. I believe he does fall into the moderate category but the thing that you did not take into accoiunt is that he is a moderate Socialist. This fact alone makes most right leaning believers label him liberal.

On privacy issues and personal freedom issuesBBDE falls into the moderate category but in monetary issues (health care, welfare, etc) he runs toward the socialistic sideline. Just my opinion.

[espn1]

This was merely posted in a previous Topic.







It is inarguable that liberals – in the modern American sense of the word – are the most flawless human beings on the planet. They are smarter, better-educated, wealthier, kinder and morally superior to those benighted quasi-Neanderthals called conservatives, who would like nothing better than to drag society back to the Middle Ages, or, according to some high-minded liberal theorists, the Iron Age.

How do we know this? Why, liberals tell us so!

Perhaps it has escaped me, but I have not personally witnessed any call for a return to the monarchy, much less land grants held in fief, on the part of even the most conservative Republican. And the last time I looked, the Bush administration was very much in favor of steel – certainly the U.S. steel industry appears to be most appreciative of his efforts in enacting a 30 percent tariff on their behalf.

But being a liberal means never having to worry about the facts. Facts can be uncomfortable, and of course, anything that makes anyone uncomfortable is a violation of our constitutional rights. The only fact that matters is the foundational fact that you can only feel what is right, so if a fact happens to contradict your feelings, obviously that fact must be wrong. Sentio, ergo rectum.

Due to this inescapable and irrefutable logic, I have finally been convinced that I will be healthier, happier and wealthier if I join the large-brained ranks of the morally superior elite. I have therefore decided to become a liberal. Already I have benefited greatly from my decision – whereas many previous discussions ended in a frustrating impasse, now, being inestimably more clever and better-looking than before, I am able to win any argument with the greatest of ease. Let me share with you the secret of my success.



1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.

Remember: As long as you haven't admitted you're wrong, you are right. Any attempt to demonstrate otherwise is evidence of criminal hate and probably mental imbalance, too. Never forget that an answer to a question you have asked should always be regarded as a personal attack if the answer is something you don't like, and that the answer to all evils personal, spiritual, moral and societal is more government money.

Now, if you don't mind, I should probably go exercise my newfound moral superiority. The world won't save itself, after all – not without the fount of all that is good and wise and smart and cute, which is to say, me.


Well the Litmus test that I'm using now is the one above and I'm refering to examples. 1.,5., 6. and 7. Which he clearly violated. After all he called me out and all I did was post this little note. :D :D :D

[carter08]

1. Make an untrue statement.

2. Deny that you said what you said.

3. Deny that the other party understood what you said.

4. Deny that the words you used mean what the other party claims they mean.

5. Redefine your definition and hope the other person forgets the previous one. Repeat as needed.

6. Assert that since definitions are irrelevant and subjective, the other person is mean-spirited, racist, sexist, intolerant and obsessive.

7. Change the subject.


Hmm
All 7 apply to Mr. GW Bush

[espn1]

Originally posted by carter08
Hmm
All 7 apply to Mr. GW Bush I would say that if we're changing topics and talking about Presidents now(red flag), this would apply to any of them. Let me know one President that you couldn't make that case against. Besides If you follow any person around on a daily basis you could pick them apart. Life and current events are not set in concrete and situations sometimes dictate change.

[mwynn05]

Originally posted by espn1
I would say that if we're changing topics and talking about Presidents now(red flag), this would apply to any of them. Let me know one President that you couldn't make that case against. Besides If you follow any person around on a daily basis you could pick them apart. Life and current events are not set in concrete and situations sometimes dictate change. So you are saying you can use that test to make it say what you want it to because thats all you're trying to do

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Come on espn1, I'm not ignorant, there were two different arguments being presented on that thread. Your statements were a direct attack on the points that I made.

Thanks for having my back Tony, it is much appreciated.

Centex, supporting social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare isn't technically socialist. If you were to put it in that category, think of how many Americans are socialist.

[Old Tiger]

I'm democratic