More well put impossible to please liberals. look at this list compiled,

The double binds of George W. Bush
Rich Lowry (archive)

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it. If he signs a far-reaching anti-terror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.

If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for "Fahrenheit 9/11" might run afoul of the law).

If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths -- his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.

If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.

If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.

If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.

"hmmmm...putting this FOUR letter word there is NOT a waste of time. It would answer a lot of questions and you wouldn't be being accused of call all liberals "Impossible." But then again, I mean it takes myself about 2 seconds to write the word "some"- wow, what a waste of time"


im not starting this stupid argument up again. i didnt make you think all liberals were impossible. you jumped to conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redrepublican:
two it goes to show you how impossible to please libs are. this is not a waste. putting a five letter word that doesnt need to be there is a waste of time.

---

hmmmm...putting this FOUR letter word there is NOT a waste of time. It would answer a lot of questions and you wouldn't be being accused of call all liberals "Impossible." But then again, I mean it takes myself about 2 seconds to write the word "some"- wow, what a waste of time!

quote:

---

Originally posted by CelticNewAger:
RepublicanoRojo

Los Liberales Imposibles

Que mucho tu jodes.

-arianhorn

http://www.tkstoystand.biz/IMAGES/SUZYS_ZOO/sz_sc_herkimer_lollipop_friend_6318_i.jpg

---

i got hte first two lines whats the second?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rissa421:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GirlExMachina:
"That isn't the only instance you have generalized, and it would be more reasonable to at least say 'some' or even 'many/most' liberals."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrepublican:
that only takes more time and wastes the space of YN.

---

But posting lengthy articles (as above) that 1 in 20 people will actually read doesn't waste the space of YN. Wow I'm so confussed...

---

one with this type of article, you dont have o red the enitre thing two it goes to show you how impossible to please libs are. this is not a waste. putting a five letter word that doesnt need to be there is a waste of time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GirlExMachina:
"That isn't the only instance you have generalized, and it would be more reasonable to at least say 'some' or even 'many/most' liberals."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redrepublican:
that only takes more time and wastes the space of YN.

---

But posting lengthy articles (as above) that 1 in 20 people will actually read doesn't waste the space of YN. Wow I'm so confussed...

RepublicanoRojo

Los Liberales Imposibles

Que mucho tu jodes.

-arianhorn

Liberals don't agree with the start of an occupation to take a tyrant out of power that killed millions of innocent Iraqis.[/QUOTE]

Millions? I highy doubt that it was millions. Six million Jews died during the Holocaust. Millions of others died in the Holocaust as well for not being "the perfect type of person." Hussein has done some bad things but he has NOT killed millions of people.

Red, your arguments are childish.

quote:

---

you take things a tad bit too literally.

---

Way to sidestep, red. Phew! Danger averted!

"How are they my 'friends'? I don't even know them and chances are I don't agree with them on everything. Where do you come up with this stuff?"


you take things a tad bit too literally. they hve the same view as you do. and they agree with you and have been saying that same stuff you have. it gets a bit tedious answering all of you.


"They were no less erroneous than the blanket statements you make."

yes they were. you said all conservatives are narrow minded i never said all liberals are bigots, or narrow minded.


"Just because a statement is correct about some people doesn't mean it applies to all..."

i never ****ING SAID IT APPLIED TO ALL. STOP STUFFING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.


"the fact its a generalization makes it incorrect by default. And how was it correct to assume I'm a huge fan of Michel Moore, that one was way off. When you begin a sentence with 'Liberals are..." its not denoting 'some' or even 'a few' but all."

i said that to **** you off. im told im too uptight. it doesnt denote cap. you are assuming wrongly which is not my fault. it is your fault.

"This is the last I'm going to adress this issue because you don't seem able to engage in a mature and reasonable debate without dodging and backpedaling when someone actually calls you on the carpet for something."

you started whining at me about this it is your fault this all started dont you dare blame any of this on me. you were te one dodging when it came to defending your points.

quote:

---

i got off to. it took a while im talking about your friends purple and kiss.

---

How are they my 'friends'? I don't even know them and chances are I don't agree with them on everything. Where do you come up with this stuff?

quote:

---

but at least my generalizations are correct. that was an extremely inaccurate generalization.

---

They were no less erroneous than the blanket statements you make. Just because a statement is correct about some people doesn't mean it applies to all...the fact its a generalization makes it incorrect by default. And how was it correct to assume I'm a huge fan of Michel Moore, that one was way off. When you begin a sentence with 'Liberals are..." its not denoting 'some' or even 'a few' but all.

This is the last I'm going to adress this issue because you don't seem able to engage in a mature and reasonable debate without dodging and backpedaling when someone actually calls you on the carpet for something.

"I wasn't on here last night, I guess the fact that i have other things to do and you can't justify constantly making generalizations of people makes me ignorant?"

i got off to. it took a while im talking about your friends purple and kiss.


"You completely missed my point. The generalizations I made about conservatives are not views I hold myself, they were a hypothetical example to show that generalizing liberals is no better than doing it towards conservatives. And your generalizations are no more correct than the hypothetical ones i used."

but at least my generalizations are correct. that was an extremely inaccurate generalization.


"Again, I do not believe in the hyothetical generalizations above, I was using them to make a point. Sheesh, and you're calling ME ignorant?"

but it was a wrong hypothetical genralization. use correct genralizations to make your point. and yes i did call you ignorant.

"Also, i think its fine to make judgement calls partianing to the only libs you know, the problem is that you lump ALL liberals into the same category."

you are stuffing words in my mouth. find where i ever said all liberals.



"Has anything I said sunk in? I'm all for your freeodm to spread what you think is the 'truth' about 'today's liberals', that isn't the problem, its that you make assanine blanket statements. "

looks like it worked. i said that to **** you off.



"That's a pathetic attempt to dodge the issue. You sure don't worry about being long-winded and taking up space when you go on about Clinton or how allegedly 'scared' and 'pessemistic' and 'ignorant' all liberals supposedly are, it would hardly kill you to type out the word 'some' or 'many' in regards to liberals"

its a waste of my time and money. hah thats because clinton has a long list of things he should have been jailed for. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! SHOW ME WHERE I SAID ALL LIBS ARE PESSIMISTIC!

quote:

---

"Could you please refresh my memory? And "I generalize because I'm always right and liberals are always wrong!' simply doesn't cut it. "

i said several things last night that explain generalization to you ignorant people.

---

I wasn't on here last night, I guess the fact that i have other things to do and you can't justify constantly making generalizations of people makes me ignorant?

quote:

---

"Then I guess it would be perfectly ok to say "All conservatives are narrow-minded, ignorant bigots!", "Bush always lies about everything!", etc."


actually thats an all out lie. bush has never lied. and there are only two or three conservatives that i know that are narow minded so that isnt eve a correct generalization.

---

You completely missed my point. The generalizations I made about conservatives are not views I hold myself, they were a hypothetical example to show that generalizing liberals is no better than doing it towards conservatives. And your generalizations are no more correct than the hypothetical ones i used.

quote:

---

"I really don't think its ok to make innacurate judgement calls."

you just did. and i can only make jusgements on libs in teh polictical world ecause they are the only libs i know!

---

Again, I do not believe in the hyothetical generalizations above, I was using them to make a point. Sheesh, and you're calling ME ignorant?

Also, i think its fine to make judgement calls partianing to the only libs you know, the problem is that you lump ALL liberals into the same category.

quote:

---

you are mad that i am spreading the truth about today's libs.[/QUOTE}

Has anything I said sunk in? I'm all for your freeodm to spread what you think is the 'truth' about 'today's liberals', that isn't the problem, its that you make assanine blanket statements.


[QUOTE]"That isn't the only instance you have generalized, and it would be more reasonable to at least say 'some' or even 'many/most' liberals."

that only takes more time and wastes the space of YN.

---

That's a pathetic attempt to dodge the issue. You sure don't worry about being long-winded and taking up space when you go on about Clinton or how allegedly 'scared' and 'pessemistic' and 'ignorant' all liberals supposedly are, it would hardly kill you to type out the word 'some' or 'many' in regards to liberals.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GirlExMachina:
"Could you please refresh my memory? And "I generalize because I'm always right and liberals are always wrong!' simply doesn't cut it. "

i said several things last night that explain generalization to you ignorant people.


"Then I guess it would be perfectly ok to say "All conservatives are narrow-minded, ignorant bigots!", "Bush always lies about everything!", etc."


actually thats an all out lie. bush has never lied. and there are only two or three conservatives that i know that are narow minded so that isnt eve a correct generalization.

"I really don't think its ok to make innacurate judgement calls."

you just did. and i can only make jusgements on libs in teh polictical world ecause they are the only libs i know!


"That statement simply supports my point that you are judging all liberals based on those who get the most media coverage. I do't blame you for not knowing where other liberals stand, but for acting as if you do."

no i never i said i knew the mind of a liberal and i never want to. its not just the liberals that get the most media coverage. its those that are activists and blunt blind ignorant fools. i never damned all liberals. o could see where you were coming from if i said ALL liberals were impossible but id dint say that.



" Exactly my point, you act as if you are on this subject. "

again no i dont. you are mad that i am spreading the truth about today's libs.


"That isn't the only instance you have generalized, and it would be more reasonable to at least say 'some' or even 'many/most' liberals."

that only takes more time and wastes the space of YN.

quote:

---

Conservatives (*some* conservatives) want to ban abortion and are always saying adoption is the great solution, but it seems that only a small percentage of them actually practice what they preach and adopt themselves, they aren't exactly lined up around the corner to take in crack babies.

---

Um, that made absolutely NO sense because you are talking about a problem from two different directions. If your point was that conservatives don't practice what they preach in that they don't give babies up for adoption rather than have abortions, you'd better come up with evidence to support this. Many keep the children.

If your point was that conservatives don't adopt "crack babies", you had also better substantiate that. In most states, prospective adoptors don't have a tremendous amount of choice; state agencies try to match parents with children by race, ethnicity, and other factors. Truth is, I don't hear of liberals running out to knowingly adopt crack babies any more than conservatives.

Many conservatives oppose gay adoptions because they feel that that lifestyle is unhealthy for children. Not so much that they'll "turn gay", but that those children will be the subject of ridicule by peers. I personally have no objection to gay adoption - there are too many children and not nearly enough loving homes, so as beggars we are not in a position to be choosers of ideal homes. But there is some logic to the conservative argument.

With respect to the Constitution, this is an example of liberal hypocrisy: THEY are the ones who always argue that the Constitution is a "living document", which may need to be changed and amended from time-to-time. So, Bush is doing EXACTLY THAT THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR YEARS. Moreover, it's funny how the left has suddenly become so sensitive to the Constitution lately, when not very long ago (and still oftentimes today) they were more than happy to destroy, gut, or ignore those rights they feel to be an inconvenience. (e.g. Second Amendment, First Amendment when it comes to opposition political speech, Fourth Amendment, Electoral College, etc.

[This message was edited by NuShoesAgain on July 23, 2004 at 01:57 PM.]

Originally posted by redrepublican:

quote:

---

read my other posts that explain why i generalize.

---

Could you please refresh my memory? And "I generalize because I'm always right and liberals are always wrong!' simply doesn't cut it.

quote:

---

it is perfectly ok.

---

Then I guess it would be perfectly ok to say "All conservatives are narrow-minded, ignorant bigots!", "Bush always lies about everything!", etc.

I really don't think its ok to make innacurate judgement calls.

quote:

---

you cant blame for not knowing what liberals think other than the ones that run around in the world.

---

That statement simply supports my point that you are judging all liberals based on those who get the most media coverage. I do't blame you for not knowing where other liberals stand, but for acting as if you do.

quote:

---

im not all knowing..

---

Exactly my point, you act as if you are on this subject.

quote:

---

i have never said all liberals are impossible i just said impossible liberals which makes no inclination to either way

---

That isn't the only instance you have generalized, and it would be more reasonable to at least say 'some' or even 'many/most' liberals.

quote:

---

Example: Liberals agree with open immigration and the aid to third world countries.

Liberals don't agree with the start of an occupation to take a tyrant out of power that killed millions of innocent Iraqis.

---

I could just as easily turn this line of argument around and have it apply to inconsistancies in conservative stances, i.e.

Example: Conservatives (*some* conservatives) want to ban abortion and are always saying adoption is the great solution, but it seems that only a small percentage of them actually practice what they preach and adopt kids themselves, they aren't exactly lined up around the corner to take in crack babies.

Many conservatives also oppose the right of gay couples to adopt, and this is a demographic that has the potential to give many of the minority and disabled kids who get left behind good homes.


Example: Many conservatives describe themselves as 'strict constitutionalists', but apparently only when it suits their own views since our conservative president proposes to go out of his way to tamper with the constitution simply to block gay marriage....an unprecedented step backwards that flies in the face of the very spirit of our constitution, with amendments that historically have been for the advancement of rights and equality, not the other way around.


Example: Many conservative Christians whine that they are being persecuted and denied equal rights when they have the same rights as everyone else, and act as if 'freedom of religion' only applies to Christianity. If a Christian is denied wearing a cross in public school they openly oppose it, but if something similar happens to a pagan you don't hear a peep out of them, some would even support such a double standard, I know people like Pat Robertson do.

And also, I don't think anyone is denying that taking out Saddam is not a positive side effect of the war, but as I have said, the ends do not justify the means in regards to how the war was sold to the people, and the fact that America supports brutal dictators, including saddam, when it serves its own interests.

[This message was edited by GirlExMachina on July 23, 2004 at 12:55 PM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GirlExMachina:

Yeah, I can see how you two would get along, you both have a tendancy to make sweeping generalizations and blanket statements about all liberals as if we were some kind of collective hive mind. At least be fair and say 'some liberals'.

---

read my other posts that explain why i generalize. it is perfectly ok. you cant blame for not knowing what liberals think other than the ones that run around in the world. im not all knowing. i have never said all liberals are impossible i just said impossible liberals which makes no inclination to either way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by redrepublican:
mr blue you are back!!!! great. you are right

---

Yeah, I can see how you two would get along, you both have a tendancy to make sweeping generalizations and blanket statements about all liberals as if we were some kind of collective hive mind. At least be fair and say 'some liberals'.

mr blue you are back!!!! great. you are right

Bush/Cheney '04

Vice President redrepublican Esq., CFO Co Founding Father

this post has proudly been deemed racism free by teh Honorable Coalition of Bushsupporter, Marine 16, notsojoey, FreeMarketLover, Redrepublican, Jookly, RepublicanChick, and TruthfullySpeaking adn thier endless pursuit to cast out the bigotry that has infiltrated youthNOISE.