Not really. That's how he has to frame it, but they're both pretty moderate. And on points they disagree on, to consider Lieberman moderate would, for the most part, require that you consider Bush moderate.

Here's the reason to consider Bush moderate: he's not extremist anything. Sure, he's right of center, but that isn't extremist.

Stem cell research. Gay marriage. Tax cuts. Expanding power of the Executive. Do you want more examples?

Not extreme, laddie: just because fringe leftists call it extreme doesn't make it so. Considering the source, it's usually a strong indication it isn't so. Those guys are simply wrong an awful lot of the time.

You see, the dumbshits who pronounce Republican as "enemy" aren't worthy of consideration as serious thinkers, but only as dingdongs likely to commit crimes with explosives -- if they don't blow themselves up making them.

Jesous Christos UG! You just keep showing yourself as more closed minded and condescending with every political post you make.

Many of those fringe leftists you speak of are considered centrist or even slightly right leaning in many countries. It depends on your point of view of course (maybe I don't think gulags are extreme and maybe you don't think bombing San Francisco is extreme) but a large portion of the world considers Bush very far right.

I'm very curious where you get your news from, but I think I know.

Radical conservative repubicans
moderate
George W. Bush only looks moderate from Barry Goldwater's point of view. You're way out of the mainstream, UG.
Bush is really just your typical right wing religious fundamentalist conservative hypocrit. Like Jimmy Swaggert with Porn, Rush Limbaugh with drugs, and Bill O'Reilly with family values, the Cheney administration talks about less government and less government spending, then DOES the opposite. They talk about spreading freedom, then secretly monitor phone traffic.

Timothy McVeigh was liberal? Radical fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists are Liberal? Is that because they allow same-gender marriage and are pro-big-government, or what?

You take that back! UG has been consistently closed minded and condescending form his very first post. :rolleyes:

lol Bruce. I honestly don't have anything against UG... he may be a swell guy in person and he seems sane when he's not posting about commie plots. I'd like to see him make points without resorting to name calling or castigating those who disagree with him. Sadly I've not seen this; you could replace commie with alien and liberal with monster and still find the same amount of support backing what he says. Really, if there is a commie / liberal plot to destroy the world I want to know about it in explicit detail.

Not insane: indignant. The one communist I'm acquainted with to any degree is tw, who I at first thought was merely perverse and irrational, until I noticed just how often and how completely his style of anti-Americanism resembles what the Soviets put out. There was a time when I'd see what the Soviets said pretty much as something related to the work I did in the Navy. Tw doesn't vary much from the stuff I saw.

Tw as a communist propagandist must be rejected of men, and completely, until such time as he becomes a pro-American libertarian. Fat chance, eh? Until that fortunate day, he tastes the lash. Communism's record is terrible, and their abuse of democracy, the one legitimate form of government, unconscionable. Add to this that there is no other form of totalitarianism that is an improvement over communism's collectivist totalitarianism, and you see where my motivation comes from.

As for close-minded -- my mind's only closed to antidemocracy, oppression, and other evils. Those to whom I condescend have been whoring after that which brings these. I say this is about equal parts stupid and perverse.

From the day I joined to today, tw has said nothing anti-libertarian and nothing pro-communism. I think that alone totally negates everything youre saying. He DOESN'T support america wholeheartedly in every case, but only a fool would. Democracies are not always right and non-democracies are not always wrong. I'll say it again, what you are saying is on par with 'it has fur, a tail, and hooves, so it must be a horse!'
It's that kind of logic that gets you sitting atop a cow. Show me one single quote where tw says a single thing in support of communism and I'll give an ounce of credit to your claims that he is a communist. Until then, I still think he's a better, more democratic, more openminded, more kind person than you, UG.

UG, I think you nuts, but far from stupid. Why is it you can't see statements like that, have zero effect on the person you're disagreeing with, but damage your own credibility with readers? :confused:

The one card-carrying Communist that I've met voted for GWB. Twice. The theory being: you can't rush a real revolution. Marx's theories say that a socialist revolution happens when the proletariat are so oppressed by the elite that they can't stand it anymore, take up arms, kill the oppressors, and establish the socialist utopia. So, he pushed things further in the direction towards revolution. Smart guy.
As far as UG: nuts? yes. Smart? No clue, but he certainly does seem to put on the stupid hat in here.

That must be a quote from Robin Williams - right? Maybe from the World According to Garp?

Bruce, he not only continues to propagandize from a Soviet Communist viewpoint, he does not deny doing so, and never has. (I haven't noticed anything particularly Maoist in tw's output, but I could be wrong there.) That Ibram, in his middle teens, can't recognize a communist when he hears one doesn't make my understanding any less valid, but tells me Ibram's not up to speed on communist propaganda. My remarks are accurate: check tw against what the Soviets used to try telling us -- cf. his comments on Vietnam and theirs -- and see for yourself. My experience with these things tells me that tw's unfortunate views are more coherently explained by a communist worldview than by some amorphous perversity of mind. It's a systematic perversity instead.

Do or do not the Communists blame America first, and perennially?

Do or do not the Communists undermine American military efforts to the best of their ability?

Do or do not the Communists prefer that America never take any action abroad, ever? They wanted us withdrawn from the world, the better to implement their oppressions and poverties. (A very bad religion, communism.)

Does or does not tw do all three of these, frequently and loudly? I keep seeing just that from him. You know what they say: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action.

So, do not reject it out of hand when I call somebody a communist. The left was handed an enormous gift with the scandal around Joe McCarthy, and since that debacle the intellectual lightweights think it "sophisticated" to dismiss it when somebody notes somebody else's communist attitudes -- all because Tail Gunner Joe had a brain tumor and fell to bits. That the loudest anticommunist in the Senate was a sick man doesn't invalidate anticommunist activism or sentiment -- as the lightweights would have it, and thereby roll over for oppression, poverty, and the generally suck quality of life that is what Communism delivers. That it's something tw is blind to is evidenced by his deafening silence on that point.

The lightweights would like to pretend this struggle was between the Communists and the Birchers. Not so; it was between the Communists and mankind.

Ibram's age is irrelevant. Nobody except you thinks that tw is communist. Of any age.None of those have anything to do with communism. Are you just using the word "communist" to mean "person who doesn't like some aspects of US foreign policy"? Your rehabilitation of McCarthy seems to suggest so.

I guess that mystery is solved.