 | | From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | Being against the war in Iraq does NOT mean being for Totalitarian Islam. Or, why Kerry lost and why Michael Moore is still a weenie... From The New Republic, specifically here: "A Fighting Faith (AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LIBERALISM.) by Peter Beinart (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) If the argument is that all liberals have no validity because of Michael Moore, and therefore Kerry lost, why then hasn't every conservative lost because of the Big Fat Lying Drug-Addict? :-) -->Bruce<-- League of Green-Eyed Devil's Advocates (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I can't speak to that question. It's not the argument I've made and I do not think that it's the argument that Peter (the New Republic editor) made either. I think rather he's making the argument to his own brethren that they are missing the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: From the New Republic: A Argument for a New Liberalism —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | As an outsider looking in, it appears to me that if the "Liberals" what power all they have to do is shout about god a bit and bash gays a little. It is that simple! ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
