Could We Please Stop Calling Obama, Reid, and Pelosi Liberals?

The problem, and why labels are so bad, not all leftists are liberals, not all liberals are leftists, not all dems are liberals, not all cons are reps, not all scientists are atheists, not all politicians are crooked (just most), not all murderers are psychopaths, etc. etc. etc. ...

It's just so damned laughable that not a single soul on this board will admit to ever supporting George W. Bush. George who? Sorry, folks, but the odds say that most of the "conservatives" who post here most certainly DID support him at one time. But it's not a happy place to be, so you pretend you were off somewhere else during his 8 years.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

Obama doesn't want to own the auto industries, but he also doesn't want to fuck the economy over. Indeed, he does, via quick sale to Fiat after forcing the end of rule of law regarding bankruptcies.

Fascist? Exactly how is not letting hudge funds rape Chrysler facist? Rape Chrysler? They were the ones providing capital until 1/20/09. Then HE came on the scene, and said, "Fuck you! My supporters are getting what they voted for. Problem is, lots of those hedge fund managers did too and now are going public.

Tax transfer isn't from "disdained groups" to "favored groups". Its from people who have money, to those who need money. And sin taxes are to prevent people from engaging in the sin. Bullshit to the first. On the second, IF everyone stopped smoking, drinking pop, etc., then they'd have to come up with new 'demons', maybe you?

Nobody has been demonizing people who make over 200k. They've been demonizing AIG, and some hedge funds and the like. Taxing isn't the same as demonizing.

Oh oh, here it comes. In a week, they will be calling them right wing nuts. Just watch!

Look, Bush was a flaming liberal, at least on spending and as for social policies, well, he sure wasn't my kind of conservative. We had every right to toss him your way... but, you ain't gonna pawn those three off on us! No way... no how!!!!

Immie

Actually that doesn't say he launched anything from Ayers living room, merely that he was associated with Ayers. And so the fuck what? Ayers now writes books on education and is a college professor. Ooooooooh, scary.

....But the anti-smoking crusaders are less persuasive with their financial claims. Since they know they are on the side of the angels, they evidently feel entitled to fudge the numbers. They suggest that the billions spent on "smoking-related diseases, " which are no doubt elastically defined in any case, represent a net loss to the treasury.

In fact, the eventual savings, if they exist at all, will be much less. A smoker who expires from, say, emphysema at 60 will certainly have been a drain on the health-care system, but at least he never will be again. A contemporary who hangs on for another 30 years of gathering decrepitude, on the other hand, may prove just as, or even more, expensive in the long run.

If nobody smoked, we'd have to hire a bunch more gerontologists. That would be fine, of course, and there is a strong case for an increased tobacco tax regardless of the dubious numbers. Doctors who deal with the effects of smoking came in waves to testify passionately in favor at the House committee hearing.....

Anyone who wants government ownership of auto makers is pretty damn liberal.

It could be argued that the strong armed tactics used on the banks and the bankruptcy court regarding Chrysler are fascist, but then liberalism is fascist.

Using taxes, even sin taxes, to transfer wealth from a 'disdained group' to a favored group is liberal. (Rich to poor; smokers to SCHIP; pop to health care...)

Demonizing groups of people, (over $200k), to effect change of wealth distribution is liberal.

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

Anyone who wants government ownership of auto makers is pretty damn liberal.

It could be argued that the strong armed tactics used on the banks and the bankruptcy court regarding Chrysler are fascist, but then liberalism is fascist.

Using taxes, even sin taxes, to transfer wealth from a 'disdained group' to a favored group is liberal. (Rich to poor; smokers to SCHIP; pop to health care...)

Demonizing groups of people, (over $200k), to effect change of wealth distribution is liberal.

Look. I'm a liberal. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are left-leaning centrists. If someone has voted the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have, they aren't liberals; they're centrists.

Think of politics as a spectrum. Chomsky is a liberal, Nader is a liberal, the Green Party is liberal, but Democrats are not liberals. Democrats are centrists. Some Democrats voted for the Patriot Act for God's sakes! That isn't liberal. That's as right-wing as you can get from a liberal point of view. Anybody who doesn't immediately act to stop waterboarding isn't liberal. Anybody who supports clean coal isn't liberal. Anybody who maintains a military presence in Afghanistan isn't liberal. Anybody who bails out Wallstreet and the big national banks isn't liberal. If the spectrum goes from blue to red, then liberals are ultra-violet; anyone in the blue is just a liberalistic centrist with some right-wing tendencies.

I know that those of you who see politics from the right-side of the spectrum perceive centrists as liberals, but remember: you have to adjust for bias. Its called Kentucky windage.

Tis okay KK... I didn't wave the sarcasm flag.

Sorry, Nik, you missed my poor attempt at humor as well.

Immie

Dave, remember the shooting range? Its windy. You have to adjust. If Obama is as far left as you can get, then what is Chomsky and Nader? What is the American Socialist party? The Green Party? They're even more liberal than the three I named.