Has anyone considered the word 'liberals'

[Pockets]

is just a substitute for the word 'Democrats' among the Right?

When a Cons uses the word 'liberal' it is pretty safe to anticipate a vague and inaccurate generality about Democrats, half the U.S.

The point is that radio hosts and politicians do not want to offend half the country by using the word Democrat, but in fact they are.

As the country becomes more in tune with the social corruption on the part of our leaders, both politically and in the media, more and more people will know the feeling of being attacked.

I think this is a show of power over us, the way they get us to become more obedient, dosile. It might not even be intentional but it is happening, IMO.

How far will people allow it to go?

[Zenlitened]

1. Liberal and proud. And refusing to kow-tow or apologize...

... for labeling the repukes as "shit."

When they cry about us mean ol' liberals and Democrats calling them names -- just LAUGH in their faces.

Any other response, and yer being punk'd.

[sandnsea]

2. Hold on to your hat

It isn't new, it is intentional, it is to intimidate, it's worked very well for a long time. People are starting to wake up to the tactic, but not near enough.

[applegrove]

3. They needed to destroy the word because they covet it. Liberalism

is about trade. The neocons are neo-liberals if you get down to the science of it all.

By separating democrats from 'themselves' they weaken Democrats and dance them outside of their own selves.

The markets & world trade belong to all of us.

They are trying to break the back of the political system (indeed some say they have destroyed many parts of the old Republicans - especially the isolationist portion).

How else are you going to remake the world in your own 'brilliant' image.

The end game is to weaken international governance because they see that as very dangerous (just like we see corporations and not the group to be making the regulations).

They would have a world where the legislative, judiciary, political & the regulators are all separate (non meshed together as they currently are in our democracies). Those relationships would be more international in nature and less vertical (as in the USA now).

So the corporations or the world would not be regulated by the legislatures of state governments but by international regulating bodies like WTO, WB, etc.

They see institutions like the UN as too much influenced by passion and NGOs. Which to them looks like the NGO X is legislating through the UN legislation.. what the USA can do.



They want the passion to be in one place, the power in another.