Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Are you serious?
Reid and Pelosi are far leftist! Obama might be a little more to the center than them, but he is still very much a liberal!
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. ...
Good point.
But left is another way of saying liberal. just as right is another name for conservative. Pelosi and Reid are definitely ultra-liberals social, on immigration, on the environment, on guns and esp their fiscal plans!
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
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.
you're funny. believe it or not i am one of the most liberal people here in that I believe personal liberties and freedoms are of the utmost importance.
What Is Classical*Liberalism?
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.
that any democrat can call themselves liberal is laughable
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.
Yes it is, read what he has said.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
And for every claim your way.. there is analysis the other...
THE OBAMA-AYERS CONNECTION at DickMorris.com
And lest we forget Obama's love of Alinsky's philosophies
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.
Ayers is a scumbag terrorist. But I can see why you lefties like him. He fits the mold. If you don't agree with the government, protest violently.
His ass should still be in prison. Period.
Yes, he has.Yes it is, read what he has said.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.
End of rule of law? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Cool it with the hysterics.Hardly, as the previous link demonstrates. Oh my god, rule of law and everything is ending because now judges can alter mortgage agreements!!!!!!!! Oh noes!!!!
The hedge funds which were providing capital bought most of the bonds at cents on the dollar, hoping for a government bailout. They only invested in Chrysler, cause they thought the gov't would save their investments for them. Why are you so OK with corporate welfare? Why is it the governments responsibility to help hedge funds? Tell me that, please. What the government is hoping the 'people' will get, but they are not that stupid. Detroit Bankruptcy Quiz: Do We Hate Car Dealers as Much as Hedge Funds? | Green Business | Reuters
And no, if everyone stopped smoking/drinking pop, the savings on healthcare costs would more than make up for the costs in taxes. Do shorter-lived smokers save us money? - James Gill
....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.....
And yeah...they'll tax me for being me. Try to be a little bit less stupid, fuckwit. Just to prove you know you are spewing BS
And no, he hasn't been demonizing those who make over 200k.
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.
How upset were you that Big Oil got subsidized by taxpayers even though they showed record profits year after year?
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.
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.
How upset were you that Big Oil got subsidized by taxpayers even though they showed record profits year after year?
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.
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.
Oops, there I go again ducking below the humor line ...
I gotta stop letting them fly over my head.
Tis okay KK... I didn't wave the sarcasm flag.
Bush wasn't a liberal on spending policy. Being liberal doesn't mean "omg, lets spend money on anything and everything". It means spending money on the things we, as liberals, care about. Spending money on invading third world countries, and building up the military doesn't count as being liberal.
Sorry, Nik, you missed my poor attempt at humor as well.
Immie
Haha, well some people actually think that kind of shit, that Bush was a liberal. Its hard to filter out when you make jokes that people actually think ;p
They're FAR from being centrists.. and about as far left as you can get on stances, voting records, etc, within our government...
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.
By voting record.. Obama was the most liberal in congress.. and that says something.. his reference to socialist texts and concepts has been continual...
He is DAMN far left.. maybe not a 'pure' socialist... but loves the concepts and ideals and is a direct neighbor of the socialists
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.
you're funny. believe it or not i am one of the most liberal people here in that I believe personal liberties and freedoms are of the utmost importance.
What Is Classical*Liberalism?
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.
that any democrat can call themselves liberal is laughable
No, you are laughable, because you probably agree with progressives/liberals more than you do Republicans yet I always see you here bashing liberals. The right has brainwashed you into thinking the word liberal is a dirty word.
who you call liberals are not liberals. In the classical sense, liberals favor personal freedom and economic freedom above all else. you are in favor of a government that restricts freedoms, via legislation and confiscatory taxes all in the name of "fairness". that is NOT liberalism.
And I bash people like you who are constantly calling for bigger more expensive government. That has nothing to do with liberalism.
The same way fake conservatives have turned me off to all conservatives. I like some of what real conservatives have to say, I just don't believe them because I heard Bush and the GOP from 2000-2006 say the right things but they didn't deliver shit. Yet you don't hate them like you hate liberals.
I don't hate anyone. that is for you lefties to do. My position on smaller government and lower taxes has always been consistent. But you on the other hand are OK with spend happy, tax happy Democrats while you disapprove of spend happy, tax happy republicans. that is hypocrisy plain and simple. And for the umpteenth time, I did not vote for Bush either time he ran. i am not and have never been a member of the Republican party.
The stop thinking that us liberals want to socialize the country and take away your guns. We don't. And stop thinking we are anti corporations just because they are anti labor. We gotta fight back when we are attacked. Its not that we hate them. They hate us. Is there any doubt the GOP considers us "the rabble"?
I don't remember ever saying those things to you. But you fail to realize that you can't be pro-jobs and anti-business.
Just like you might not relate to the most radical right wingers, we don't relate to the radical lefties.
Ron Paul was on AIR AMERICA last night and the host said, "if more conservatives were reasonable like you Dr. Paul, we might be able to work with them on common ground.
But the GOP branded the one honest guy in your party a lunitic. So what should that tell me about that party?
Think what you want about the GOP. I am not a member. I think we need a new third party movement which is why I have not voted for a republican or a democrat if there is another option.
Glenn Beck rolled his eyes to Ron Paul when he interviewed him and Ron Paul didn't say anything wrong. And how come Rush doesn't interview Ron Paul? Because he doesn't want to piss off the Ron Paul fans in the party.
I don't watch beck, nor do I watch any other talking head stuffed shirt on the boob tube. Maybe you should start reading and forming your own opinions instead.
You do realize that the GOP will never admit Ron Paul is right?
Once again, I don't give a flying fuck what the repudlican party does or does not do.
i will say that Ron Paul should leave the repudlicans. IMO he'd be a good candidate to spearhead a new party. Judd Gregg would be another good choice but we both know it ain't gonna happen.
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.
you're funny. believe it or not i am one of the most liberal people here in that I believe personal liberties and freedoms are of the utmost importance.
What Is Classical*Liberalism?
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.
that any democrat can call themselves liberal is laughable
How so? I'm very much a Jefferson liberal, as is every other DEMOCRAT I know.
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." ~~ Thomas Jefferson, March 31, 1809
