Is Fox "News" a news organization?

[Pangloss]

During his campaign he sold out on everything one could consider progressive to try and plead with the base.

 

Just as a side note, I've heard this from the left before, but I'm not sure I understand it. The point seems to be that conservatives, whom liberals often criticize as insufficiently intelligent, were too smart to be swayed by a sellout. It seems like a contradiction to me -- are they smart or are they stupid?

 

Isn't it more likely that while he did move to the right on some issues, he did not move sufficiently to the right to persuade religious-right voters to turn out in numbers that might have made up for the lost moderates?

[toastywombel]

Just as a side note, I've heard this from the left before, but I'm not sure I understand it. The point seems to be that conservatives, whom liberals often criticize as insufficiently intelligent, were too smart to be swayed by a sellout. It seems like a contradiction to me -- are they smart or are they stupid?

 

Isn't it more likely that while he did move to the right on some issues, he did not move sufficiently to the right to persuade religious-right voters to turn out in numbers that might have made up for the lost moderates?

 

I guess you have a point, the conservative base did see through Mccain, but I would still not call him a progressive. It seems that Mccain alienated every voting block. First by snubbing the far right much of his career then snubbing everyone else but the far right during his campaign against Obama.

[Pangloss]

No, you're right, John McCain is not progressive, and those on the far right who call him progressive (and may honestly not be able to tell the difference) are simply revealing the extremity of their bias. (Same thing happens on the left, btw. Joe Lieberman comes to mind, as well as some suggesting here last week that some Democrats are to the right of Republicans. These perceptions are not supported by the facts.)

 

This is one of the reasons why (in my opinion) partisanship is hard to get rid of once it takes hold.

[jackson33]

John McCain has long sought to identify himself with Theodore Roosevelt. In a New York Times story last week, he repeated that identification, portraying himself as a "conservative" Republican like TR who disagrees with his fellow conservative Republicans about the role of government. [/Quote]

 

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7117/

 

John McCain's Teddy Roosevelt Fetish..

 

John McCain believes he's the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt.

The presumptive Republican nominee channels the 26th president -- his "ultimate hero" -- on the campaign trail, in his platform, even in an online ad in which images of the two are juxtaposed. "I am," he has said, "a Teddy Roosevelt Republican." - McCain's self-comparison to T.R. makes for good PR[/Quote]

 

http://the-classic-liberal.com/retire-progressive-john-mccain/

 

 

 

No, you're right, John McCain is not progressive, and those on the far right who call him progressive (and may honestly not be able to tell the difference) are simply revealing the extremity of their bias. [/Quote]

 

It's not what us biased on the "FAR RIGHT" think, rather McCain himself claims. If you care to go through the second site offered, you'll get a good pictures of his history as either a 'Moderate/Progressive or Populist'. With all due respect, I feel, I can tell the difference!!!

 

This is one of the reasons why (in my opinion) partisanship is hard to get rid of once it takes hold.[/Quote]

 

IMO, partisanship, is not a bad thing; We have in this country, two very different ideologies on how Government should approach Governing. I would think the idea that these two should not make their differences KNOWN, is the real problem.

[Pangloss]

Theodore Roosevelt wouldn't last ten seconds at a MoveOn.org convention. You aren't equating John McCain with the historical progressive movement, you are branding him with the hot iron of the modern progressive movement.

 

I'm sure you feel you can tell the difference between left and right, and I'm sure you don't feel that partisanship is bad for the country. That's a standard Rush Limbaugh refrain as well, that the conflict is good for us. He's got a valid point, he just misses the part where you set that conflict aside because it's time to achieve a result. He's not interested in results, he's interested in the conflict itself, and the fact that he's convinced so many Americans to feel the same way is staggering in its implications. There are no historical precedents or founding-fathers truisms that can justify this. If anything the founding fathers, students of Roman history all, would have been goggle-eyed at our modern Satnurninii, and would have stood in line to pull the roof tiles off the Capitol building to cast them down upon Rush Limbaugh and his ilk.

 

But I have no doubt that you feel you can tell the difference, and that you don't feel partisanship is bad for the country. That's your opinion and you certainly have every right to it. I myself feel that partisans have an important role to play in our democracy. It's just not generally the one that they think it is. Someone pointed out to me a couple of years ago (possibly here at SFN) that just because someone is partisan doesn't mean they aren't right. It's a bit like saying that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you. But it's a perfectly legitimate point. And, after all, it takes all kinds to make up a political body. Diversity doesn't hurt is, in general it actually helps us, so I accept that.

 

Of course all of this is just my two bits anyway. Maybe I'm wrong and the truth of the matter is that one group of partisans is correct and the other one is incorrect, and if we just turned over the country to the correct group of partisans everything would be fine.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Pangloss

[toastywombel]

No, you're right, John McCain is not progressive, and those on the far right who call him progressive (and may honestly not be able to tell the difference) are simply revealing the extremity of their bias. (Same thing happens on the left, btw. Joe Lieberman comes to mind, as well as some suggesting here last week that some Democrats are to the right of Republicans. These perceptions are not supported by the facts.)

 

This is one of the reasons why (in my opinion) partisanship is hard to get rid of once it takes hold.

 

I think your right about partisanship, it is really frustrating. I for example would consider myself a leftist, but I don't agree with much of what the democratic party is doing.

 

For example I believe in corporal punishment for some inmates.

I am a supporter of second amendment rights.

 

I think the government spends too much money and we could easily cut out budget in many areas while still offering many great public services such as transit, roads, healthcare, and social security.

 

The real problem is military spending (private contractors and an army all over the world) and mysterious spending I think. If you actually look at the budget some of the items seem ridiculous, repetitive, and rather sketchy. Also I think are country is too high on tax breaks. Its seems like people want public services, but are upset when they have to pay for them. Really either way you end up paying for services if its public or private.

 

There are some services that should be offered to everyone though (public transportation, education). Healthcare for example is one of them. It is rather ridiculous to say it is a privilege not a right. I could imagine an alien civilisation looking at us and inferring that we are rather brutal and primitive, because we only care for the people who have enough of this green coloured paper.

 

I think the government needs a role in the economy when it comes to changing direction or implementing new ideas (public healthcare or alternative energies). The private sector is really slow as changing direction (mostly because there are so many variables involved), if they are making money they like to leave the market the way it is, but that is simply just insanity in an ever-changing world with finite resources.

 

The major problem isn't that government is corrupt or that corporations are corrupt, that is too simple. Furthermore, there are examples of foreign governments and corporations that work much more efficiently, effectively, and are less costly than ours. The problem is that our society is corrupt, and it is impossible to have uncorrupted governments and uncorrupted corporations rise from a corrupt society.

 

As far as jackson33 saying partisanship isn't a bad thing, I think it is when it goes to far. For example the democrats destroyed the republicans in the last two elections, they have a near super-majority, yet they can't do hardly anything because of the threat of republican filibuster. It is really ridiculous when the people have spoken and the losing party just forces the government to a halt, because they are so partisan.

 

But I guess the country is still center-right (sarcasm), that is why we have one of the most liberal presidents ever (republican talking point) and one of the most liberal congresses ever (republican talking point).

 

I really have to be honest, republicans talk of all this hope they have for the next election, but I think it is rather over-hyped. The simple demographics do not favour the republicans at all. Hispanic for example are the fastest growing electorate and it seems to me that the republicans have completely isolated them from their party. Republicans have also isolated the African American population, Gay and Lesbian population, and the majority of the Scientific Community.

 

Even if the republicans win, it is not going to be the party it was in the past, they will have to change. For example Scott Brown, he is a republican, but I would not consider him a neo-conservative like the republican leadership of the past (Cheney, Newt, Bush, etc.)

Edited February 25, 2010 by toastywombel

[bascule]

It's not what us biased on the "FAR RIGHT" think, rather McCain himself claims. If you care to go through the second site offered, you'll get a good pictures of his history as either a 'Moderate/Progressive or Populist'. With all due respect, I feel, I can tell the difference!!!

 

There's a vast difference between a populist and a progressive. Glenn Beck can be considered a populist (or at least portrays himself as one during his nightly theatrical performances).

 

I think John McCain is more of a populist than your average Republican. He certainly isn't a progressive, which is more or less a euphemism for "liberal". He's progressive by Republican standards, I guess.

[jryan]

There's a vast difference between a populist and a progressive. Glenn Beck can be considered a populist (or at least portrays himself as one during his nightly theatrical performances).

 

I think John McCain is more of a populist than your average Republican. He certainly isn't a progressive, which is more or less a euphemism for "liberal". He's progressive by Republican standards, I guess.

 

 

The Progressive Movement (Progressivism) is not synonymous with "liberal". it was actually the Progressive Movement that co-opted the "Liberal" name when the Progressive Movement stalled after WWII (after it had thrown in with the Soviet Union ideologically)

 

Having lost their name, classic liberalism (often called "Big L Liberalism") "became" Libertarianism. I say "became" only because there is some level of change in all ideological shuffling such as this.

 

I don't think anyone really confuses "liberal" and "progressive" without there being a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms.

[swansont]

Especially given the way that "socialist" is being bandied about these days, I doubt that any of the political descriptions as currently used are tied very closely with their original movement.

[jryan]

Especially given the way that "socialist" is being bandied about these days, I doubt that any of the political descriptions as currently used are tied very closely with their original movement.

 

True. The original Progressive movement in the US was started by Teddy Roosevelt (aka The Bull Moose Party), but his movement bore little resemblance to the Progressive movement a few decades later.

 

But reading the intermingled history of Liberalism, Socialism, National Socialism and Progressivism in the US it is easy to see how many can get the terms confused today.

 

I think the reason socialism and progressivism often get confused is that their fundamental view of what the problems are are almost identical. Social inequality, tyranny of corporation and social injustice are the central themes of both movements. Socialism advocates a government takeover of industry to control equality of outcome while Progressivism seeks amelioration through legislative and regulatory means.

 

In this way Progressivism is similar to National Socialism, which unlike straight socialism (read: communism) National socialism advocates private ownership of industry with direct participation of owners (often called "corporatists") in national governance. These movements share/shared a common rhetoric as well (equality, social injustice, etc.).

[bascule]

The Progressive Movement (Progressivism) is not synonymous with "liberal". it was actually the Progressive Movement that co-opted the "Liberal" name when the Progressive Movement stalled after WWII (after it had thrown in with the Soviet Union ideologically)

 

Having lost their name, classic liberalism (often called "Big L Liberalism") "became" Libertarianism. I say "became" only because there is some level of change in all ideological shuffling such as this.

 

I don't think anyone really confuses "liberal" and "progressive" without there being a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms.

 

You really enjoy living in the past, don't you?

 

Nowadays liberal and progressive are more or less synonymous. I think the recent trend in liberals referring to themselves as progressives comes in the way of conservatives bandying about the word "liberal" disparagingly.

[Pangloss]

Its seems like people want public services, but are upset when they have to pay for them.

 

Oh yeah I definitely agree with that. They don't always realize what they're getting. As if highways and safety regulations come built into the planet.

 

 

There are some services that should be offered to everyone though (public transportation, education). Healthcare for example is one of them. It is rather ridiculous to say it is a privilege not a right. I could imagine an alien civilisation looking at us and inferring that we are rather brutal and primitive, because we only care for the people who have enough of this green coloured paper.

 

I agree with the services just not the reasons for them. I think we should pay for those things because they're a smart investment in our future, not because they're a "right". But as long as we could agree that the right should not be abused (fraud, etc), we're in basically the same place.

 

An interesting and thoughtful post.

[Phi for All]

Having lost their name, classic liberalism (often called "Big L Liberalism") "became" Libertarianism. I say "became" only because there is some level of change in all ideological shuffling such as this.

 

I don't think anyone really confuses "liberal" and "progressive" without there being a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms.

I don't see how liberalism could have "become" Libertarianism. I believe in change because systems become easy to scam when they don't grow and get better along the way, so I consider myself liberal in that regard. But I also believe in governmental controls and regulations, especially with regard to business where profit motives often override what's good for the populace as a whole. I am nowhere near being a libertarian.

 

Furthermore, I also think progressive and liberal are basically the same thing, especially since conservatives have done such a great job of making liberal synonymous with anti-freedom commie soldier-haters. I regard progressive as a movement towards keeping up with fast-changing times and not letting ourselves get bogged down in 50's nostalgia and bygone days seen through rose lenses.

[jryan]

You really enjoy living in the past, don't you?

 

Nowadays liberal and progressive are more or less synonymous. I think the recent trend in liberals referring to themselves as progressives comes in the way of conservatives bandying about the word "liberal" disparagingly.

 

Progressive and "liberal" are more or less synonymous in the same way that regardless and "irregardless" are synonymous. One if the right word and the other is the wrong word for the same thing.

 

Your version of "liberal" does not believe in the tenets of "Liberalism"... if that sits right with you then feel free to keep using it. I have used it myself on occaission, but I am increasingly trying to use "left" in place of "liberal" because as you yourself have said, your side can't really settle on a term... but "left" always works.

Edited February 25, 2010 by jryan

[bascule]

Progressive and "liberal" are more or less synonymous in the same way that regardless and "irregardless" are synonymous. One if the right word and the other is the wrong word for the same thing.

 

Your version of "liberal" does not believe in the tenets of "Liberalism"... if that sits right with you then feel free to keep using it.

 

Considering "my version" is the contemporary standard usage, I certainly will. If you want to take back the turn-of-the-century meaning, keep reaching for that rainbow.

 

I'm also a libertarian, although I prefer the term liberaltarian

[jryan]

Considering "my version" is the contemporary standard usage, I certainly will. If you want to take back the turn-of-the-century meaning, keep reaching for that rainbow.

 

"Contemporary" is also not synonymous with "correct". I prefer to use words that are differentiated and have actual meaning rather than the "we're "progressive" this week... no wait.. "liberal"!

 

I'm also a libertarian, although I prefer the term liberaltarian

 

You sure don't seem to share many planks with classic liberalism or Libertarianism.

 

A while ago I made the following light hearted diagram to describe the similarities and differences between liberal (progressive), Liberal, and Libertarian:

 

 

One day I think I will expand it to include some other ideologies, but Progressive, Liberal and Libertarian share enough in common that it was just easier to make this version... and it was in response to a question about these ideologies on another website.

[The Bear's Key]

Having lost their name, classic liberalism (often called "Big L Liberalism") "became" Libertarianism. I say "became" only because there is some level of change in all ideological shuffling such as this.

I revealed your kind of claim to be false in October. Below is much of it...

 

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal

c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

 

 

More roots of the word's origins (from all etymology books at the library)...

 

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology

(1988)

liberal

adj

Probably before 1350, befitting free men, noble, generous;

.....

Cognates of Latin

liber

are found in Greek eleutheros free (originally) belonging to the people, of genuine tribal stock,

.....

The sense of free from prejudice, tolerant, is first recorded in Gibbon's

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

(1776-88), followed by the political sense of favoring constitutional change and legal reforms in 1801. The latter was probably borrowed into English from French

libéral

, attested in 1750 with the sense of favorable to individual political freedoms.

 

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1986)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; (of political opinion) XIX.

 

 

The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1966)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; of political opinion XIX (opp. to

Conservative

,

Tory

) 1801.

 

 

Dictionary of Word Origins

(Joseph T Shipley)

(1945, 2nd Ed.)

liberal

See

liberty.

 

........

 

liberty

The L. word for free is

liber

; the noun,

libertas

(whence Eng.

liberty

), the adj.,

liberalis

. Thus the

liberal

arts are those befitting a free man. But Latin

liber

,

libr—

, originally the bark of a tree, came to mean book (

see Bible

); whence L.

librarius

, whence Fr.

libraire

,

librarie

, whence Eng.

librarian

,

library

. The diminutive of L.

liber

, book, is

libellus

, little book, whence Eng.

libel

; but since pamphlets, from Elizabethan England on, were full of scurrilous attacks, the name was transferred from the booklet to its contents.

Liberty

does not permit

libel

—though from the freed man, L.

libertinus

, comes Eng.

libertine

. (The 17th and 18th c. Fr.

libertine

was unrestrained in politics and religion rather than in morals.) But L.

libra

also means balance, scales; whence the sign of the Zodiac,

Libra

. Hence also the use of L.

libra

as a measure, 12 ounces, one pound, and our abbreviation, 1

lb

. The term

libration

is used in astronomy to mean oscillation, as a balance might tremble.

Liberate

means to set free; but

deliberate

is from L.

de

, down —

liberare

, to balance, weigh in one's mind.

Notice the copyright dates of the books. The older dictionary meanings all have "liberal" as meaning free in the progressive sense, i.e. not free market or absence of government regulation (for industry).

 

Going to work, so I'll not be responding for a couple days likely. But think about discrepancy more. Why's it there?

[jryan]

I revealed your kind of claim to be false in October. Below is much of it...

 

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal

c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

 

 

More roots of the word's origins (from all etymology books at the library)...

 

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology

(1988)

liberal

adj

Probably before 1350, befitting free men, noble, generous;

.....

Cognates of Latin

liber

are found in Greek eleutheros free (originally) belonging to the people, of genuine tribal stock,

.....

The sense of free from prejudice, tolerant, is first recorded in Gibbon's

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

(1776-88), followed by the political sense of favoring constitutional change and legal reforms in 1801. The latter was probably borrowed into English from French

libéral

, attested in 1750 with the sense of favorable to individual political freedoms.

 

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1986)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; (of political opinion) XIX.

 

 

The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1966)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; of political opinion XIX (opp. to

Conservative

,

Tory

) 1801.

 

 

Dictionary of Word Origins

(Joseph T Shipley)

(1945, 2nd Ed.)

liberal

See

liberty.

 

........

 

liberty

The L. word for free is

liber

; the noun,

libertas

(whence Eng.

liberty

), the adj.,

liberalis

. Thus the

liberal

arts are those befitting a free man. But Latin

liber

,

libr—

, originally the bark of a tree, came to mean book (

see Bible

); whence L.

librarius

, whence Fr.

libraire

,

librarie

, whence Eng.

librarian

,

library

. The diminutive of L.

liber

, book, is

libellus

, little book, whence Eng.

libel

; but since pamphlets, from Elizabethan England on, were full of scurrilous attacks, the name was transferred from the booklet to its contents.

Liberty

does not permit

libel

—though from the freed man, L.

libertinus

, comes Eng.

libertine

. (The 17th and 18th c. Fr.

libertine

was unrestrained in politics and religion rather than in morals.) But L.

libra

also means balance, scales; whence the sign of the Zodiac,

Libra

. Hence also the use of L.

libra

as a measure, 12 ounces, one pound, and our abbreviation, 1

lb

. The term

libration

is used in astronomy to mean oscillation, as a balance might tremble.

Liberate

means to set free; but

deliberate

is from L.

de

, down —

liberare

, to balance, weigh in one's mind.

Notice the copyright dates of the books. The older dictionary meanings all have "liberal" as meaning free in the progressive sense, i.e. not free market or absence of government regulation (for industry).

 

Going to work, so I'll not be responding for a couple days likely. But think about discrepancy more. Why's it there?

 

Now explain how big government, high taxes, and heavy regulation translate into "freedom" or "liberty".

 

The 1966 definition is pertaining to arts, not politics, and is still more "Libertarian" in it's definition. You'll have to extract what meaning you intended from the 1945 definition. The 1776-1788 definition is probably what you were going for, but even then that is 12 years out of ... 635 year? And listening to a modern "liberal" talk about Southerners or Governors from Alaska you would be hard pressed to describe them as free from prejudice.

[toastywombel]

Now explain how big government, high taxes, and heavy regulation translate into "freedom" or "liberty".

 

The 1966 definition is pertaining to arts, not politics, and is still more "Libertarian" in it's definition. You'll have to extract what meaning you intended from the 1945 definition. The 1776-1788 definition is probably what you were going for, but even then that is 12 years out of ... 635 year? And listening to a modern "liberal" talk about Southerners or Governors from Alaska you would be hard pressed to describe them as free from prejudice.

 

Taxes can provide social systems that give citizens many freedoms they would not have if these government institutions and taxes did not exist.

 

The Post- freedom to communicate effectively

 

law enforcement- freedom from criminals being able to disrupt your life un-challenged.

 

The highway system- freedom to travel

 

FDA- Freedom to go and buy food without worrying about it being fake, bad, or infected.

 

The military- protects freedoms from external threats.

 

Public Healthcare- freedom to live.

 

All the above are government systems that help protect/ promote freedoms.

[bascule]

"Contemporary" is also not synonymous with "correct"

 

You seem to be confusing "correct" with "archaic"

 

You sure don't seem to share many planks with classic liberalism or Libertarianism.

 

Yes, I'm certain you're capable of judging that with your limited time on these forums.

 

I'm a lower case l libertarian, or more specifically a civil libertarian.

 

I think my reputation on defense of civil liberties is well-established around here.

[jryan]

Ah, well by those qualifications then we are all Libertarians! I guess I'm a neo-classical-minarchistic-libertarian. Welcome to the club! This discussion is doubleplusgood!

[jackson33]

bascule; You seem to forget, when liberties are granted to some, others lose some.

 

As for being a 'Libertarian', I'd suggest this is not possible and you may border on Socialist if we're no longer going to use the terms 'left wing libeberal'. Anyway take the test, be honest and give us your results...very short and guess I'm a hard core libertarian, but prefer being a simple Conservative.

 

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

 

Taxes can provide social systems that give citizens many freedoms they would not have if these government institutions and taxes did not exist.[/Quote]

 

toasty; If taxes provide so many benefits, why bother collecting a wage. Let the Governments have them and supply us our needs as they wish....think there is name for that.

 

All the above are government systems that help protect/ promote freedoms.[/Quote]

 

You have got to be kidding!!! Someday I'll go over the process I want through in 1960 to open my first business and what it took, compared to today. Another business from the 1980 to 1996 or so, when owning several trucks, driving one big rig on occasion. I'll list the 48 different State Laws/Taxes/Inspections and the dollars set aside annually just to cover those expenses. I smoke and drink beer, but can't do either in MOST places, even a home if I chose to live there.

 

As far as jackson33 saying partisanship isn't a bad thing, I think it is when it goes to far. For example the democrats destroyed the republicans in the last two elections, they have a near super-majority, yet they can't do hardly anything because of the threat of republican filibuster. It is really ridiculous when the people have spoken and the losing party just forces the government to a halt, because they are so partisan.[/Quote]

 

What would be too far?; Pangloss agrees with you that the RP has been obstructing Obama Care in every possible way, might add with the support of their constituents and some Democrats opposing their own constituents. They have stalled, delayed and done everything possible, but until the Brown Election, they had absolutely NO POWER, to block any bill, House or Senate. It was a few with in the Democratic Party, not the accused Republicans.

 

It's my belief that any Congress person, should represent their State or district, regardless their own opinions and if possible, the Executive to represent the American People in total, staying away from legislation. Partisan, must then follow any issue as this Country is basically 50-50 on any issue of importance.

 

The Bear; Think maybe the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK, is being confused or fused into the American party, but in any event , most Democrats claim to be liberal, having no idea how conservative the meaning may be judged. Bigger Government/Higher Taxes/Control over States (mandates), Corporate Regulation, Welfare of any kind, organized labor and all that represents the current Democratic Party of today are Socialist, not liberal, their chosen word of the day.

 

swansont; I like to reference Socialism versus Capitalism, or the different approach of Government to business. Pure anything has probably never existed but all Governments have trended in one direction or another. This IMO, would be no different on any issue, where some opinions/actions of Government or by individuals may lean one way or the other from the center. Any attack on the American Private Sector, Capitalism or Free Trade are then socialistic, but does not make the advocates socialist. IMO, what we have been seeing in this Administration are simple Chicago thug like politics, with tendencies to promote/implement socialistic type policy. There is nothing indicating their policy is directed at all people or even the middle class, but directed at select groups of people, whom for whatever reason are not capable of being self sustaining.

[jryan]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

 

Says I'm a boarder line conservative/centrist... which they say makes me centrist. The "Maybe" answers are funny though... the only way to hit dead center is to answer "maybe" to everything. That isn't centrist, that's agnostic!

[bascule]

bascule; You seem to forget, when liberties are granted to some, others lose some.

 

As for being a 'Libertarian', I'd suggest this is not possible and you may border on Socialist if we're no longer going to use the terms 'left wing libeberal'. Anyway take the test, be honest and give us your results...very short and guess I'm a hard core libertarian, but prefer being a simple Conservative.

 

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

 

I've taken tests like this several times. They show I'm an extreme liberal and a strong libertarian.

[jackson33]

bascule; Using my opinions, how you would answer, you would have come off a left/liberal and I'll post their definition, which I'd bet you agree with.

 

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"

to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. [/Quote]

 

 

 

Says I'm a boarder line conservative/centrist... which they say makes me centrist. The "Maybe" answers are funny though... the only way to hit dead center is to answer "maybe" to everything. That isn't centrist, that's agnostic! [/Quote]

 

jryan; For you to have entered 'maybe' on any of the issues mentioned, would show indecision, possibly concerned with being politically correct or a tenancy to go either way, all of which are signs of a centrist. McCain, would also fall in this category, probably dead center, or under certain circumstances, he would disagree. There definition of Libertarians;

 

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties. [/Quote]