Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2  Liberalism teaches or encourages dependence instead of independence. |
Not necessarily. It depends on how one defines "liberalism." What you're doing is regurgitating a Limbaugh/Hannity talking-point, based on a particular type of "liberalism," but not "liberalism" as a whole (it's something that comes in many forms, just as there are many forms of conservatism ... which the aforementioned blowhards also often misrepresent by presenting only one definition of that, too).
I know people who qualify as "liberals" who do not think everyone should get government largesse, only those they believe "need" it. Of course, defining "need" is another matter ... but since these people believe there is a point beyond which government should not give to people, then they CANNOT, by definition, be promoting "government dependence for all," since they do not think that "everyone" should get government help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 That's one of the main reasons why I don't think it's right. |
You're basing your opinion of "liberalism" on talking-points parroted by the Right-wing. I can think of no
worse way to understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 And I think you'd better look at the number of libs in the house and senate before you start throwing barbs at the president. They've been in charge now for how long? Their approval rating is LOWER than the president's. |
As a rule, Congressional approval ratings are ALWAYS lower than the president's. That they are slightly lower, hardly helps Bush in this regard. The fact is that BOTH are held in contempt by the
vast majority of the public ... quibbling over minute percentages of difference does nothing to change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 But, I guess that's Bush's fault too. |
A lot of things are the president's fault. A lot of them are also Congress's fault. For the record I think BOTH are screwing the country royally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 In your opinion, what makes Bush such an "idiot"? |
He recently made a comment that it was "interesting" that we were looking at $4-a-gallon gasoline. "I've heard that," he said.
Sorry, this doesn't impress me. He's clearly out of touch with ordinary Americans' concerns. Oh, and if you think the price of gas is a trivial thing that a president need not know about, guess again. Few things are as pervasive through the entire economy as the cost of gas. It affects EVERYTHING since virtually all goods are transported by truck. High gas prices are not just something Bush ought to find "interesting" or something that he should have merely "just heard about" ... it's something he should actively be working on at all times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 He's got the same amount of Ivy-League degrees as Osama-Obama has...( 2 ). |
The Senator from Illinois is named "Barack Obama." Not "Osama." I'm not a fan of his, but I'm not attempting coyly to confuse him with the world's most infamous terrorist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 Is it that we are at war and you tend to disagree with it? |
I agree with you on this point: Most people who proclaim to hate Bush are against him solely because of the Iraq War. They are your quintessential "single-issue voters." Then again there are many on the Right, who are ALSO single-issue voters. That doesn't make any of these people right ... all it means is that it's easy to wedge Americans into ideological obsession on all sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2 Liberals think that we can just go and TALK to these radicals and that will make them not want to kill US. You can't talk to madmen. You can't appease them. So, what else has Bush done that's so bad? |
Most of the "liberals" I know, do NOT want to "talk" with terrorists, negotiate with them, or anything of the kind. Most want a bullet in bin-Laden's head just as I presume you do. Claiming that
all liberals want to negotiate with terrorists is a straw man, simply because they don't all want to.