Good for you. But I do notice you follow to the LETTER your party’s party line, in every way. So you must depend on someone telling you what’s what.
Knock fox and Breitbart all you like - I trust only what I can verify, and your sources have turned out to be very weak and misleading.
Thanks for clarifying your contribution.
1 Like
I find your repeated accusations false! I just again argued above that seeking to impeach the president over what he did is foolish and not what the founders had in mind (and shooting Democrats in the foot)! I’ve regularly criticized Dems for their rank partisanship and particularly insisting on opposing pro-lifers and other idiotic litmus tests. I criticized Obama for endless things, including the way he got us involved in fighting wars overseas, praising Trump in contrast. (Are their things about your party’s president that you strongly criticize?)
I recently criticized Dems here who propose cancelling student loan debt. I’ve especially criticized them for seeking a Medicare for all that would take away people’s private insurance. Just today I ridiculed them on my FB page for so many geriatric patients seeking to grab the next presidency. The Democratic party is being driven to insane extremes, and my sentiment that it’s a mess is revealed on my pages daily posts. I’ve also personally repeatedly listed to you dozens of virtues and pluses about Trump and his accomplishments
Dave, Are all of These “the LETTER of the Democratic party line in every way”? What “line” is it that you know someone tells me to follow and I obey?? The reality is that I’ve long registered GOP and voted for many GOP candidates, and regard myself as an independent and a moderate. But seeing that all of our most prolific U.S. contributors here have been passionate Always Trumpers, and passionate resenters of anyone offering a critique, and seem obsessed with denigrating any Democrat, I decided that one American will defend such critics where justified and I perceive your partisanship as over the top.
That such challenges lead you to insist that despite my numerous deep disagreements with Democrats that all my views “follow the LETTER of the Democrat party line in every way” reveals less about me, than how your sense of equilibrium needs conformity to the Letter and purism of the pro-Trump right.
Bob: I believe you in your protestations. I am nothing more than a fascinated observer of US politics but I would add to your list of critiques of Democrats: from what I understand from the Dem candidate forums, they are all adamantly pro-abortion (pro-choice). For me, that would be No. 1 objection on my list.
Once, Jason Pratt called this an academic forum. And I - even as an “aspiring” Holy Fool - view it as such. And I have posted some “good questions”, to the person with the attack on Preterism.
When I was at Norwich University, Aurora University and the College of Dupage, guess what? The professors always entertained other positions. As long as you rationally and objectively - defended them. To do otherwise is a sign of immaturity. And only Holy Fools and zombies, reserve the right to act immature.
In the end, the Democratic house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. And the American peopel, will probably vote him in - for a second term.
Here’s a BBC summary, in 3 minutes:
Let’s all sing a song…Hopefully, it will reflect this impeachment soap opera final episode. 
Thanks, I totally sympathize with #1 objection to the Democrat’s stance. It is what my incomplete list meant in saying, "I regularly criticize Dems particularly for opposing pro-life & such idiotic litmus tests.
Thank you for accepting my frustrations! It’s mainly I’ve watched and cited the sworn first hand testimony and the committees cross examination and discussion of it. And no one engages any of that.
It feels like those who claim they verify everything and have not even watched the firsthand evidence and debate accuse me of being the one who depends on fake news sources, and only respond with ad hominem attacks on me or other personalities, and copying second hand spin from partisan sources.
I weary of the broad generic attacks on us as liberals, radical leftists, evil Democrats, Clintonistas, etc, as if applicable to all who differ with the right’s political correctness, instead of addressing any of the actual contentions and evidence presented by those of us who fail to sufficiently exalt the president.
I’m bored with such labeling and caricatures, and hoping for engagement on actual current events.
The conservative side of things has lost its focus just as much as the liberal side of things. I don’t come from political people and took little interest until the Trump thing started; which I dearly wish had not turned into this huge national dust-up. But even though we weren’t political, I have noticed the liberal agenda change over the years, and I think these points are generally good ones: (if and when the conservatives start raising the most hell, we can visit THEIR change from robustness to wussification :-))
"If you go back just a few decades, here is what liberals believed:
- Everyone should be judged as an individual. To see someone as a representative of a group is to stereotype him.
- People have a right to privacy, which means that what they do in their personal lives isn’t relevant to their public and work lives.
3. Free speech is the basis of a free society. - Journalists should act as nonpartisan watchdogs monitoring the halls of power.
- Western civilization is the story of freedom and equality spreading to more and more people in the world.
6. The United States is a city on a hill.
7. Scientific findings should be examined on apolitical grounds of validity and method.
8. One must accept the results of fair elections.
9. The best art transcends politics.
10. We must stand up for the working man.
Those positions weren’t controversial back then, but they are worse than controversial now.
Here is what 21st-century liberals believe: (in general)
- Everyone should be judged as a member of an identity group.
- Anything you say on Facebook may be sent to your employer with a demand you be terminated.
3. Speech is violence. Free speech must be curtailed so that historically disadvantaged peoples won’t be further harmed. - Journalists must become partisans when they object to the politics of the persons they cover.
5. The United States was built on slavery and genocide. - Scientific findings must be judged by their political implications.
- The election of someone who is abominable must be overturned.
- All art is political, and the best art reinforces progressive goals.
- The working man in America is a drain on innovation and dangerous to the environment.
- Western civilization is a legacy of white supremacy."
1 Like
I find this 2nd list a deeply false caricature apparently written by a right wing partisan, not a “liberal.”
I think it’d be better to let those of us 21st century brothers on the forum regularly treated as evil leftist liberals define what we actually believe, rather than trust partisans to tell us what our beliefs must be. I for one don’t find the first list of 10 controversial, as you assert.
As I explained to Invernessian above about your previous personal accusation, the constant labeling and caricatures soon become repetitious and lose interest (for me at least).
Dave doesn’t assert the first list of 10 is controversial. And I think the second, controversial, list is, generally, pretty accurate. I would suggest that you do not agree with (fit in with) the second list because you are not actually a “twenty-first century” liberal–you are instead a Christian, and apparently a “twentieth” century liberal.
Hermano got it. Mr. Wilson is an exception to the fear-mongering, mendacious Left of today. As I’ve said, I respect him. I do not respect what his party has become and, unfortunately, it won’t be people like Bob that are elected.
The first 10 things in the list are not controversial imo. The second 10 things we’ve seen in the news every day - m/l - for 20 years, it seems.
Yes, thank you and Dave for recognizing that I don’t fit your current definition of liberal. My problem is number one, I don’t agree that Democrats generally hold the second 10 beliefs. They are actually pejorative caricatures of most people’s beliefs defined by a partisan critic and perhaps fitting your perception of many opponents, but not at all how many of them would define their beliefs. My sense on this forum is that debates on most every belief devolve into one side insisting that they know the other person’s theological position, and the other rightly replying they are entitled to define their position.
So my real point, is that given your gracious recognition, my frustration is that when I present a view (e.g. an interpretation of the president, or an argument for what appears reliable from impeachment witnesses) the response is regularly an accusation that I support a “party line” and a generic ad hominem denigration of “mendacious” liberal leftist Dems, as if a case I present is thus now demolished.
Thus what I keep suggesting is that if it’s recognized that I’m indeed not a classic leftist 21st century liberal, how about dispense with all the name calling in response, and just engage whatever case I’ve presented on the substance of its’ actual merits or lack thereof.
2 Likes
Forgive yet another vantage point from Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter, WSJ’s Peggy Noonan. Impressions will vary, but she too obviously watched this weeks evidence and cross examination, and I sympathize with her over arching conclusions on what went down, and where this will go.
This is terrible! Simply terrible!
What’s the world coming to, when someone can’t accommodate a reasonable request? 
The BBC knows what’s important!!
Totally reasonable to fire her. If push came to shove, I would have done the same.
Norm, you will totally go to jail for saying that lol
Push and shove - oh my, I need a safe space…
Really? Is that a promise? Free food, free movies, a free bed, free new clothes, free laundry services, free housecleaning, free Internet? Free legal advice, free counselling? Where do I sign up?
Free friends, don’t forget…
Here’s an interesting article, from today’s Patheos’ Evangelical newsletter.
And this story reminds me, of the impeachment soap!
And brings to mind a song!
I’ve heard about so-called “reality TV” shows but have never watched one. It would appear that is going to change pretty soon. Tomorrow I think I might buy a special seat belt for my recliner. The next couple of months looks to be wild after Durham’s report has been published.
The storyline doesn’t look as if it is going to play out well for the leftwing Democrat party. That’s a prediction anyway from this armchair quarterback. Don’t forget I was the first to call this game.
1 Like