Am I a liberal? A conservative? Something else?

[karlrschneider]

Am I a liberal or a conservative?

I think the USA should not be the world's police force.

I believe we should provide for universal health care.

I don't support 'outsourcing' millions of jobs to obtain cheap labor

especially for multinational corporations.

I believe our Constitution is the Law of the Land and should be
observed literally but with allowances for new and changed technologies, knowledge and cultural shifts.

I served in the military for 6 years.

I believe the U.S. government should balance the budget and minimize
deficits..

I believe most people of all ethnicities and nationalities are

basically decent but that sociopathy can erupt within any particular
group.

I believe that religion, of any flavor, should never be allowed to
dictate public policy.

I consider government to be the employee of citizens and should reflect

a majority opinion while protecting the interests of minorities.

I think government is best when it governs least (not my original
thought but assuredly my opinion)

I subscribe to the teachings of Jesus, especially those in the Sermon
on the Mount but have no allegiance to the Rabbinical "Laws" from

Leviticus, or the pontifications of Paul/Saul who never met Jesus.

I consider "patriotism" to be an illogical and artificial construct
based on arbitrary boundaries and usually an accident of birth.

I believe wars are seldom justified but can be under certain rare

circumstances.

I think the statement "freedom isn't free" is nonsense - and an
oxymoron.

I want the government to keep its nose out of my bedroom, my medical
records, my bank accounts and my activities.

So, where does this put me on the lib-con spectrum?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. I agree with everything you said

(except I never served)

When you find out what you are, let me know, m'kay?

:)

[welshTerrier2]

2. forget the labels

they just don't matter ...

keep learning; keep fighting ...

[marions ghost]

50. exactly

the labels have been used against us. The labels have been used to divide this country in a profoundly negative way. I don't use labels anymore if I can help it.

[Wwagsthedog]

3. Leftist-Libertarian

I'm with you 95%. I took one of those political spectrum tests once. They used an X/Y axis and put me in the lower left quadrant. It was called political compass and I think their site has gone down???? They called me a leftist-libertarian. If you decide to start a new party, let me know because I'm about fed up with the so called choices in the USA.

[FredStembottom]

27. That was fun! I'm Nelson Mandela!

By which I mean my "spot" landed precisely where Mandela is on the "examples" picture.

Works for me!:D

[Kixel]

55. I was by Sharpton and Gandhi

I figured that was a good place to be!

[WestSeattle2]

31. amen

[Catchawave]

49. I'm always left of Ghandi on those tests !

And quite happy about that :)

[aein]

4. I agree with you...mostly

Except:

For the bible part, I don't believe any of it is particulary authoritative, but prescriptive

The really interesting debates in con. law, particularily structural, can't be answered by looking at the wording or history (much of it unclear) of any one provision.

I support "outsourcing" and open borders. Mercantilism was debunked a long time ago, lets not revive it.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi aein!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rageneau]

5. You're a rational liberal. Like me.

[distantearlywarning]

6. I also agree with everything you said

Although I also never served in the military. I often call myself a member of the "Playboy Party" because the only place I ever consistently see my own viewpoints reflected across the board is in the pages of Playboy (and I'm a woman, oddly enough - bought the subscription for my husband originally but now I reserve the right to read it first every month because of their politically-based articles). I would vote for Hugh Hefner for president in a nanosecond.

I've taken the political tests and tend to score as someone said up thread, as a "leftist-libertarian". I don't ever fully agree with people from either side of the left-right spectrum, and tend to think extremists on both sides are morons. I also have too much of a soft heart and a "Christian" value system to go along completely with the hard-core living-in-a-cabin-in-Montana-with-my-gun-because-the-government-will-eat-me libertarians.

I've also noticed that my ideas about how the world and my government should work tend to be radically different from every US politician who could seriously be elected, including most of the Democrats, although my ideas tend to be more different from those of the Republicans than from other people's, which is why I'm at DU.

I also wrote a post almost exactly like yours a year ago and was told that I was a libertarian. Some people here almost froth at the mouth when that word gets mentioned, but at the same time many of the viewpoints I have expressed on this site don't seem to be that outlandish in terms of general DU values and I don't get in too many flame wars, so who knows? I suspect at this point that most people here just don't understand what the word "libertarian" really means in the real world, conjure up an image of the evil capitalist when they hear it, and then engage knee-jerk thinking about it. I don't care - whatever people want to call me or not call me, it's all fine with me. I'm more worried at this point about how the hell to make my government sensible, regardless of what label the right or left puts on it.

[Jacobin]

7. I have the same beliefs except the Jesus thing

I don't know what to call us.....reasonable, perhaps?

[karlrschneider]

10. I'm an atheist and not sure whether the Jesus described in the

Xian bible existed or not. I just meant I agreed with what he supposedly said, not that I "believe in" him as a deity or a Deity. :-)

[Jacobin]

12. Then we have exactly the same outlook

I think Jesus was an important philosopher of his time. As for needing to anthropomorphize the universe, I find that a trivial pursuit.

[nam78_two]

8. I agree with most of it except I like govt regulation to some extent :)

I am a die-hard environmentalist and animal welfare activist, so that cuts into some aspects of libertarianism for me..

[karlrschneider]

16. I'm also a strong environmentalist and animal welfare advocate,

I tried to be specific enough to convey my general views without going into detail on dozens of issues. I probably should have spent some more time composing my little missive, it just sort of belched forth. :-)

[nam78_two]

17. Ah gotcha :)!

And no your post was pretty comprehensive. I just misunderstood the last line.

:toast:

(I need to spend less time reading what Freepers write ;) eh?)

[calico1]

18. I agree. Too much deregulation has caused

a lot of the problems we have..in many areas.

[DemExpat]

23. Yes, I would stand with you as agreeing with Karl except for this point

that government regulation is definitely needed in these 2 areas.

:hi:

DemEx

[alvarezadams]

9. Commie!

Actually, you seem to be a social libertarian.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

This would make you one of the immense majority of progressives - and perhaps the largest voting bloc unrepresented by a political party.

[distantearlywarning]

11. Great.

I scored just slightly to the right of the Dalai Lama. And nowhere freakin' near any other major world leader. No wonder I feel so angry and baffled by these idiots all the time.

[karlrschneider]

15. Interesting. I ended up just a bit left of Gandhi.

:-)

[Sooner75]

13. Takes a liberal to be a real conservative

These labels are all bent and distorted like funhouse mirrors. The self-appointed experts aqka pundits seem to set the definitions to suit their own sensibilities.

I consider myself to be a constitutional conservative. I am part of the lineage of Americans who believe the framers were pretty smart. We have done pretty well when we have try to adhere to its bedrock principles. Being a constitutional conservative means that I trust conservative rather than liberal interpretations of its intent. I also I believe that every elected or appointed official that is sworn to defend the Constitution is bound to do just that. No one is above the Constitution. Period. Somehow that makes me a liberal. Go figure.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative who wants a balanced federal budget. Clinton proved that it can be done. We can live within our means, and we'd be better off if we made it a priority. Somehow that makes me a liberal. Go figure.

I consider myself an environmental conservative. I think it just makes sense to try to have clean air, clean water, and clean soil. Somehow that makes me a liberal. Go figure.

I consider myself a conservative regarding military operations. I don't want to go to war unless there is a very good justification. In the early part of 2003, I was having a very heated email exchange with my very Republican brother about the justification for invading Iraq. I said that the case had not been made for the invasion. He disagreed -- believing the WMD argument -- whichj didn't pan out. Somehow HE's the conservative and I'm the liberal. Go figure.

I consider myself to be a conservative regarding universal healthcare. Just about every other prosperous, industrialized country has universal healthcare for its citizens. They also get consistently better medical outcomes at constantly lower costs. We'd conserve the health of our people better with universal healthcare and spend less money doing it. Somehow that makes me a liberal. Go figure.

[nam78_two]

19. Very good points

>> These labels are all bent and distorted like funhouse mirrors.
That too by people who are not liberals certainly, but not even true conservatives...
They are just looters and thugs.


Take an issue like the environment...That used to be a bipartisan issue. When did ignoring things like the science of global warming become something that is "practical" , "sensible" etc.
I really like your argument about healthcare. Of course there is no debate of that sort nowadays. Its all just sophistry and name-calling.

I am not particularly fond of Andrew Sullivan but he had a point when he said the Shrub will be remembered as the "Man who tried to destroy American conservatism" (not that Sully hasn't been doing his part to do that as well). Of course in that CSPAN debate Arianna's definition was more spot-on "he will be remembered as the man who tried to destroy America period" :eyes:

I can't believe my boy-friend and I have seriously had to reconsider our plans of having a baby at some point, because of the world this Shrub has created :-/ ......
sensible? practical? sustainable? For who?

[alvarezadams]

20. On fiscal conservatism

This has become something of a meme over the years - a talkingpoint originally framed by conservatives as a weapon against the New Deal and social spending.

From an historical perspective there is nothing "wrong" with a national debt. In fact the British Empire was founded upon and flourished on the basis of the world's first publicly-financed national debt. The Brits used the debt to turn themselves into the world's bankers and the Pound into the moneta franca - and nobody can argue that the US has followed Britain in both senses.

From the perspective of Keynesian economics, the government should "save" during the periods of financial bouyancy - and spend when times are bad. "Pump-priming" is a proven method of at least softening if not reversing economic downturns, especially if the money spent is on labour-intensive endeavours.

I interpret "fiscal responsibility" in this sense. In good times governments should cut spending. In bad times it should spend - to the point of incurring debt, repaying said debt at the next economic upturn.

To demand a balanced budget at all times is an empty, populistic and counterproductive meme.

[Sooner75]

21. I'm with you

You're providing a much higher resolution view of fiscal responsibility. The key, of course, is responsibility. Real responsibility. You can increase spending to work out of stagnation. You just have to keep on an eye on costs and benefits.

We recklessly overspend for big ticket defense projects like that huge turkey, Star Wars. It's so easy in the short term. They create jobs, fatten corporate profits, make congressmen into hometown heroes. But, what are we getting for those dollars? Systems designed to go to war with the USSR -- which went away over 15 years ago.

Right now, we KNOW that something like $10 billion has simply disappeared into the Iraq rathole.
Right now, we KNOW that we were lied into that war and that unprecedented no-bid contracts quickly followed.
Right now, we KNOW that we're burning through $1.5 billion a week in Iraq with no end in sight.

Anybody who thinks that those three things are utter and complete bullshit is an authentic conservative. So, let's all call ourselves real conservatives and accuse Rush, Sean, Ann, et al. as being inexcusably soft on REAL conservative principles!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

30. Jefferson wrote not only against national debt but also NATIONAL BANKS...

like the Federal Reserve. He resigned as Secretary of State, under Washington in 1793, over the issue because dumb-ass Hamilton was creating a monster. As for the rich tradition of the Bank of England, what do you think the Revolution was really about, alvarezadams?

[alvarezadams]

35. Revolution?

"As for the rich tradition of the Bank of England, what do you think the Revolution was really about, alvarezadams? "

Some wealthy types that had just been saved from the French and Indians didn't want to pay for it - and some Enlightenment idealist types that wanted more representation.

Now, what does that have to do with fiscal responsibility?

[Jeffersons Ghost]

36. as you touted the wonders of theoretical national debt management...

you forgot to mention that we're over $9 TRILLION in debt during these "bad times" and times, like the debt, are rapidly getting worse. The softly-swaying up-to-down swing you offer is pure theory and has never occurred in the history of our National Debt. You also totally misrepresented how the average workers in England suffered for hundreds of years as a direct result of the Bank of England, just as Colonist were beginning to do around the time of the Revolution. Historically, International Banking and debt-based currencies are the real root problems, not the solutions.

Also, keep in mind, the national debt is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors (primarily the Federal Reserve and Bank of England) who hold US Debt Instruments. This does not include the money owed by states, corporations, or individuals, nor does it include the money owed to the recently robbed Social Security beneficiaries of the future.

Check out this White House propaganda, which also misdirects attention away from the facts:


The difference in White House inaccuracies and yours are that I suspect you did not intentionally misrepresent facts and have likely just fallen for some of the rampant bushit running around the web these days.

This chart more clearly reflects the truth:

Do you see any of those gentle, theoretical up and down swings in borrowing? Are you prepared for the next and Greatest Depression?

[alvarezadams]

38. It seems that...

...you're taking me as a defender of today's fiscal irresponsibility. I am not.

I am not against the IDEA of a debt in bad times as long as it is repayed during the good ones. This is classical Keynesian economics - the same economic ideology that brought us the middle class and the consumer society -- that was overthrown first by the military/industrial complex and then by conservative (neoliberal) economics.

As for the suffering of English workers, you seem to find a causal factor between debt and the piss-poor wages that workers earned. You'll have to prove that causal relationship and explain how the mega-wealthy Brits fared so well and the workers (who were hardly taxed) so poorly as a result of the national debt.

As for the colonists, they were less taxed by the Brits than by Congress.

"Historically, International Banking and debt-based currencies are the real root problems, not the solutions. "

Again, you'll have to prove this one. Good luck.

"The difference in White House inaccuracies and yours are that I suspect you did not intentionally misrepresent facts and have likely just fallen for some of the rampant bushit running around the web these days."

Again, you seem to identify me with a supporter of the misadministration. I made a theoretical comment which is not only valid but proven (through historical data). The misadmin (and its predecessors since Carter) largely rejected Keynesian economics and their debt-spending has not been for labour-intensive projects nor for pump-priming purposes... and they have shown no fiscal restraint during the "good times".

So before you turn me into an imaginary enemy get off your high horse.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

40. I can't prove theory any better than you can, which is why its theory...

You just typed: "I made a theoretical comment which is not only valid but proven (through historical data)."

While my economics background might not be as extensive as yours, I DO know what the term "theory" means.

According to one reasonably reliable source: Keynesian economics (pronounced /ˈkeɪnzjən/), also called Keynesianism, or Keynesian Theory, is an economic theory...

If this mysterious "historical data" you referred to, actually furnished reliable "proof" the Keynesian Theory would become the Keynesian Principal. The unproven theory you refer to is widely debated by economists.

Now you go right ahead and PROVE your theory before demanding the impossible of others. I can't "prove" my theory either but I'll debate from a position of openness and honesty. At least I offered SOME evidence to support my views, instead of simply saying there was "historical data."

I am not suggesting there is NO evidence that the Keynesian Theory works but it is obviously too meager for ANY noted authority to reasonably claim it is "proven."

[alvarezadams]

43. Pardon my vocabulary

The debate behind the efficacy of Keynesian economics is ideologically driven. Neoliberal (Austrian School) economists have attacked it incessantly since the 1940's - yet the results are there for all to see.

"Proven" has another meaning, fwiw: "established". Keynesian economics defeated the Depression, won WWII and created the middle class as well as the longest period of economic growth and well-being in history.

What you seem to disagree with is something I too disagree with; fiscal irresponsibility. Keynesian economics have been successful but politicians do not always apply Keynesian economic policies. Thus we have often failed to scale back spending in good times - or we have misspent in bad times.

Yet you disagree with the very concept of national debt. It seems that you would have the budget balanced regardless of any contingency - the "general store" approach to the budget in a world where credit is a way of life. I'd shudder to think how the economy would react to, say, a Katrina or a war within such a budgetary framework - either the government would not be able to confront such costs or would have to wildly change tax rates--- or cut long-established programs.

Economies are cyclical and are subject to events just as government policy is. The very idea behind Keynesian economics is to soften the extreme range of the economic cycle in order to minimize suffering.

It seems to me that a "set in stone" balanced budget can only tend to economic anarchy, suffering and even possibly ruin.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

45. Perhaps, you'll call it "oversimplified" but here's straight-forward logic

CURRENT LEADERS =

leading to the question, WHO PULLS THE STRINGS?

old cops say, "FOLLOW THE MONEY!"

it's easy, right?


right?


right?



Indeed, all roads lead to the Pentagon but that maze-like building is certainly not the final stop...

true power has deeper roots

now all we have to prove is that key owners of this privately-held, highly profitable, corporation are honorable people with truly egalitarian notions before allowing them to wield such power in the world. I wonder how long those key families, which by the way, just dodged the inheritance tax, have been in banking.

[alvarezadams]

47. No argument from me!

I am against a corporatist America, against the military/industrial complex, against the manipulative RW thinktanks, against the Scaifes, Olins, Bradleys et al, against the undermining of har-won social victories, against the corruption and perversion of our political system by big business...

[bread_and_roses]

51. Yes. And a Republican code

for gutting basic needs and common good programs - though I don't think the people here mean it that way. That is the thinking it promotes, though. As in, even here, some will justify cutting basic needs programs/education/health care to "balance the budget" if taxes are also raised on the rich and corporations - under the "everyone must give up something" principle.

If I remember what I've read rightly, the rich lived pretty dammned well when they were taxed at something like 70% - maybe it was higher.

There is no equavalence between having fewer toys or trips and hunger and homelessness. Or even fewer toys and trips and forgoing higher education.

[flaminbats]

32. Republicans are bound only by clubhouse snobbery..

Republicans love to claim "there are a lot of conservative blacks. But they're not black conservatives"

Republicans say that "nobody can be prolife and oppose our war against terrorism"

Republicans love to say "tax cuts increase revenue, and deregulation only helps the economy"

"income taxes penalize only the successful with higher rates, while rewarding others for making bad decisions."

"socialized medicine is only rationed care, but medical savings accounts will solve everything."

"Slick Willie only panders for votes..but George is honest, compassionate, and conservative."

"freedom is never free, but taxes are always too high!"

"stagflation is just another result of tax and spend liberalism, but Bush doesn't deserve the blame for high gas prices!"

"bleeding heart liberalism encourages freeloading, but conservatives a freemarket economy"

"environmentalists are tree-hugging screamers, but small business is the endangered species."

"civil rights advocates only whine for affirmative action, but conservatives know this country was founded on state's rights."

In the words of Reagan "people have made it plain already, they want an end to excessive government intervention in their lives and in the economy, an end to..a punitive tax policy that doesn't take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned"

But now we're supposed to believe that a national sales tax is the solution for returning this bread? Years of enduring this political funhouse can drive anyone insane..no wonder neocon flakiness does so well in this country!

[sendero]

14. Other than serving..

.. in the military and the Jesus stuff, I'm with you 100%.

The problem is, like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, we're all supposed to choose sides.

I refuse to choose a side on that issue because they both suck, but one is pretty much forced to choose between the two parties if you want to participate in American politics.

I choose Dems not because I'm with them on everything, only because they are closer to my beliefs (by a country mile) than the Republicans.

[Mz Pip]

24. Not crazy?

Those who seem to believe the opposite of these things pretty much fall into the category of bat shit insane.

US as worlds police force - We aren't the X-MEN. Lots of delusion on that one.

Letting people become and stay sick because they have no health care - definitely a streak of sadism in that philosophy

Outsourcing jobs - WHy do you hate Americans? Greed may not be a pathology but it often is accompanied by Narcissism

Constitution? Who needs a fucking constitution? Let's go with delusional again.

Served in the military? Well, thank you for your service. Can't come up with a pathology for that.

Deficits! IT's the American way! Ask any credit card company. Living beyond your means is definitely being in denial of reality.

Sociotpathy only exists in groups other than my own. See denial.

Religion? IT's God's way or the highway and only the chosen few decide what God's way is. See delusional. Again.

Minorities have no rights. Majority rules. Period. See stupid.

Patriotism. Often confused with Nationalism. Let's go with Narcissism again.

War. War is our business and business is good. Try Messianic Complex along with a bit of OCD.

Government. Government is best when it control the world my way and only my way. See Messianic Complex.

The teachings of Jesus. He was such a wuss. Leviticus kicks ass. It's all about revenge and punishment. See Hyper-religiosity.

Freedom isn't free. Wishful thinking. Being glib with tautologies may not have a pathological root but it certainly doesn't show a grasp of critical thinking skills.

Government in our bedrooms. The more the merrier. Promiscuity at its finest.


Where do you fall? Definitely not bat shit insane.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Odin2005]

25. Left-wing (AKA real) libertarian.

My own political views are complex, they are a mix of non-Marxist socialsm (Capitalism is an inheirently flawed system since it is based on investors stealing the wealth created by workers), libertarianism (I am against the nanny state, the government shouldn't interfere with people's private lives), and Burkean conservativism (revolutions lead by ideologues are generally bad because the ideologues invariably become totalitarians, too fast of change is also a bad thing because it risks causing a backlash that makes things worse then they were before).

I vote Dem because as long as we are stuck with a 2-party system us socialists can only influence national politics by influencing the part platform and by ratting out the DLCers.

[Irreverend IX]

26. I agree with you on most counts...

Minus the religious stuff. And I do think that "freedom isn't free." The Republicans don't seem to agree with me on that, though. They want their tax-cut gas-guzzling Wal-Mart slave labor prime time TV lifestyle to go on forever, blind to the fact that they're cutting the branch out from under them with their outsourcing and warmongering.

[NativeTexan]

28. Except for the military service, and............

......your thoughts on "patriotism", I am right there with you. So whatever you are, I am also.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

29. mmm, I'd call you "wise" but...

I find labels restrictive when it comes to describing people.

On religion, I heartily agree with your views. Even as a child, Paul's writings bugged me. I think he had some real issues with women but so did the early church, according to Eusebius. The Paul you mention certainly had nothing to do with Paul of Samasota, or rather Arius, in 325 CE. Arian Heresy more closely resembled the practices of Jesus, when it comes to equality. That little meeting in 325 CE, where they decided which books would be in the Bible, resulted in Christianity getting it's first real taste of government corruption, Constantine style. I'll add St Augustine to your list people who "Doctored" a religion that didn't really need to be fixed. To me, his wild youth resulted in a guilt trip, which he laid on the Church, instead of taking responsibility and rising above it, as per Plato. From the way he wrote, he was obviously familiar with not only that great early thinker but also later Neo-Platonist, like Porphyry.

Thomas Jefferson, along with Madison also did some great writing. Like you, I believe they got it EXACTLY right, especially on matters of Separation of Church and State. I'm sick of ignorant jerks and elected Chimps screwing up our country.

Still, one of my VERY favorite thinkers wrote:
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, <insert Iraq War> the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

[OneBlueSky]

33. you're a thoughtful and compassionate human being . . .

the other labels are meaningless . . .

[DarkTirade]

34. That puts you into the 'common sense' category.

I consider myself neither liberal nor conservative... I look at each issues and use common sense to find what's the best answer.
Funny how I've never even considered voting Republican though... :)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

37. there hasn't been a true Republican to vote for since Ike...

The current batch of crooks in DC that call themselves "Republicans" are indeed neocons bent only on serving their ultra-rich power base. The really funny thing to me is that they also call themselves "Christians!" The liars have nothing in common with either group.

[DarkTirade]

39. Ironic, huh.

Even if there were 'real' republicans left to vote for, I'd still end up voting dem most of the time though. At least I'd stop and think about it first though. :)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

42. My mind is open. I'll vote for Lincoln if you get him up for the job...

I like the way he leads during a war. If you can get Abraham to run again, ask General Eisenhower to rise up as a running mate to help get us out of this military quagmire.

If you can't get either of them up for the job, all deals are off and I'll go back to supporting Democratic hopefuls that aren't OBVIOUS neocons.

[alvarezadams]

44. Lincoln wasn't too popular...

...a war leader for long periods of the war. His abuse of the constitution nearly alienated him from his own party (habeas corpus, etc.) and his choice of generals wasn't exactly great.

He was presented with the "Anaconda Plan" in the very begining of the war and it took years before he gave up and tacitly applied it. His "pushing" of generals ended up in a few defeats and quite a lot of bloodshed.

Ultimately his hagiography is the result of the final victory and his assassination.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

46. you're right on all counts. good shots!...

IMHO, he wasn't good at war because he hated it so much. I think, he'll hate it worse, after his previous ordeal... let's wake him up and let him set policy on the Iraq INVASION and OCCUPATION. He wasn't big on heavy post-war occupation either... where is that guy, when you need him?


"Anybody here seen my old friend Abraham? Can you tell me where he's gone?" O8)

[bread_and_roses]

52. Rs have always served the rich - it was the PEOPLE who checked

their Plutocratic aspirations. At least, I think a case can be made for such in the 20th Century. In particular, strong Unions helped to keep a leash on them.

It was not the Republicans who initiated the New Deal or Great Society programs.

Unfortunately, most people seem to have forgotten that the prosperity of the Middle Class was built upon the foundation of a prosperous Working Class and at least efforts to make the plight of the very Poor bearable and provide opportunities out of poverty.

As far as I am concerned, the best that can be said of Republicans is that the more sane and sensible of them are aware that there is a degree of oppression, poverty, and injustice that will wake the sleeping giant, and they are willing to oppress and steal a little less in order to keep that Giant sleeping.

[Greyhound]

41. You, like me, are the unwanted bastard child of reason and logic.

Live and let live is unknown to both "sides", and they both would be very happy if we would just STFU and go away.

[Lefergus70]

48. Please disassociate progressives from libertarians

Some posters here associate progressive ideas at the top of this thread with libertarianism. Libertarians are more right than left. Since they want the government out of our lives they do little to promote regulations that would protect our environment and our social services. On many large issues libertarians seem to be patsies for the corporations. I can't forget that arch-conservative commentator William Buckley has always described himself as a libertarian, and I haven't seen anyone challenge him on that.

[alvarezadams]

54. Nope

Just because in the US the libertarian label has been hijaked by freepers doesn't mean that the concept of libertarian is rw. In fact in the rest of the world the word is associated with the extreme left - anarchism.

Try this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[MUSTANG_2004]

53. Universal health care and....

Isn't it a contradiction to say you want universal health care and you want the government to stay out of your medical records? If they're paying the bill, then obviously they're going to need to know exactly what they're paying for, and will be making decisions about what you qualify for.