Tasine Loc: Southwest US

With people like Angela Davis, a world without racism is a world without any interest whatsoever. A world without oppressors would leave Angela Davis without a means of earning a living. Angela Davis would die if racism didn't exist. I think she would WANT to die if there was no racism. She is one of those terrorists of the '60's that universities so love and that has done more damage to true education than any group of people existing in the world today. Why anyone would place any capital on anything she might say or think is beyond me. To my knowledge she has never started a business, has never worked in the private sector, has never seen any truths that do not push her racism agenda.

Neoliberalism - LOL, I didn't know such a creature existed. Back when liberals were in fact liberals, they KNEW about business, its practices, its downfalls, etc, but most liberals in America have been pushed off the national stage to make room for the controllers, such as Bill Ayers and Angela Davis to name a couple. These people have no insight into private business - they only have insight as to how to destroy it. True liberals were so superior to them in real knowledge that it makes me sick to know they, the progs, the haters, the controllers have so many ears plastered to their "educated" hatreds.

raydan

Colin Powell all but admitted to voting for Obama because he would be the first black potus. Then he says he is a Republican!!!

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

Neoliberalism is kind of a misnomer. The term basically describes what most people identify with conservatives in terms of the economy. Also, it's tough to accomplish neoliberalistic goals when, at the same time, trying to accomplish socialistic goals.

straightUp Loc: California

Wow... so you're an expert on Angela Davis then. You call her a terrorist too. I had no idea. Then being a terrorist, who did she kill or threaten to kill? Seriously, you even know her thoughts... That's just amazing! And to KNOW that she's done more damage to "true" education than any group existing in the world today means that you understand how to measure that damage and you are also aware of every group of people existing in the world today and exactly how much comparative damage they've done to "true" education.


And this is how I can tell you know very little about politics... Neoliberalism is a term that was first used in the 1930's but came into forefront of political discussion during the Nixon era and it's been in common use ever since to describe one of the most predominate geopolitical movements of our time. When I made that crack about people here probably thinking neoliberalism has something to do with social liberals I was only half joking. But I was right, wasn't I?


I am a liberal and I started three businesses in the past 20 years. One of which I ran for 12 years before selling it. I also know a LOT of business owners who are in fact liberals.

So my eye witness says you're full of sh*t.

Honestly, what purpose does this constant story telling about liberals and who they are and what they want serve? Does it just make feel better when you say these things?

straightUp Loc: California

Powell is old-school Republican, which has very little in common with the new blood in the GOP today...

My dad was old-school Republican too and he also voted for Obama. I find it amusing that so many people have their heads so far up the "I'm a Conservative" myopic that they haven't noticed how the GOP has changed since 9/11. According to many of the classic conservatives I know, Bush was the worst president ever and Obama is a chance to return to the way things were during the Reagan era, including raising taxes on wealth to the levels that Reagan set back in the 80's.

But the extremists, sometimes referred to as neo-conservatives, have discovered how easy it is to pull the wool over the younger and the less-astute Republicans, especially when they harbor such a hatred toward liberals. It seems to me that this hatred and it's associated obsession with any and all derogatory remarks about liberals eclipses their view of the real issues that are actually shaping the world we live in.

Same thing happens on the other side, but you don't hear as much from them and most liberals are moderate anyway and have far more in common with the classic conservatives who also tend to be moderate than they do with extremists on either side.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see nothing wrong with telling the world about the dark side. BTW, in your haste to denigrate every word I wrote, you didn't notice that with my definition, you wouldn't have been included in those bereft of any info re business .......there may be 3-4 liberals still alive in the US, but we never hear from them. We only hear from the kooks. For all intents and purposes, LIBERALS simply are no longer relevant. "Progressives" with digressive policies and thinking have shoved most of the liberals into the background. The last good liberal I can speak of was a great man: Senator Patrick Moynihan. I had respect for true liberals, but NONE for progressives and socialists (one and the same.). I simply do not know of any liberals today, YOU being the exception, if you are in fact liberal. But I think you are NOT liberal. I think you are a progressive because you seem to think like they do and cannot stand to hear truths, or even ideas different from your own.

Were you around when Angela Davis was supportive of criminals? If so, you should remember it. I was, and I found her absolutely disgusting and very in-your-face, which is the trademark of the terrorists and traitors back in the '60's. They disgusted me then, and they disgust me now. They are the same people they were then, merely have changed their method of attacking civilization....and they dress better, and hopefully smell better now.

straightUp Loc: California

Correct... although I'm not sure I would call it a misnomer. Liberalism in it's most general sense refers to the act of liberation. As in liberating ourselves from the social and political constraints on personal freedom, or liberating our markets from the constraints of regulation.

It just so happens that Democrats tend to offer more support for social liberation but less for economic liberation. Republicans tend to offer more support for economic liberation and less for social liberation. Only the Libertarians seem to remain consistent by supporting both social and economic liberalism. Ah, the advantage of basing your ideology on pure, untested theories.

;)

straightUp Loc: California

Well, it's your right to say what you think but the only people listening are the people who are already convinced. So really you're only chewing it over and over among the same people. Emotional satisfaction is the only advantage I can see.


Actually, they are. Occupy Wall Street is an example of where these people are and how relevant they can be. As the plutocracy continues to fleece the American people, the interest in liberalism will naturally resurge. I predict a swing back to the left within in the next ten years.


It may seem ironic but the progressive movement was established by Teddy Roosevelt as a way to appease the people who were at the time very annoyed with the extreme forms of capitalism that fostered child labor, intolerable work conditions and economic slavery. There was a lot of injustice to feed liberal movements then which included very strong surges in the socialist and communist parties and the potential for revolution which was already starting to unleash in places like Russia.

What Roosevelt did was he offered the people an alternate route of compromises with the existing system. This allowed much of the frustration that would have charged the potential for revolution to be siphoned off into agreements with a Progressive government. There is a very good chance that the reason communism never took over here in the U.S. is that we had the progressive movement which unlike the Russian Monarchy, was willing to compromise with the people.

Today, it can be said that the Democratic Party *is* the party of progressives. Mostly moderates that prefer the idea of working within the current system to establish better laws to protect the people. The Republican party, on the other hand seems to have shaken off all their progressives, probably along with all their old-school conservatives and are now obsessed with putting capital first despite what it might do to the people.


Not even... Socialists and progressives sometimes agree on certain issues, but that doesn't make them one and the same. Obama for instance is a progressive but he is NOT a socialist. I have found that many of the people that insist Obama is a socialist, don't even know what socialism is, including Sarah Palin who is about the most retarded bimbo ever to enter politics.


How can you claim to be such an expert on liberals then if you don't even know any?

As for me, I explained in my intro, I do not associate myself with any political direction in the absolute sense that people on this forum do, because I think we should be able to change direction depending on where we want to go or what we want to avoid.

Currently, I think our perception of the center is quite a bit to the right of where it was 30 years ago, meaning that what was once considered center is now considered left and I think this shift has allowed the Bush administration to bring extreme politics into play for the first time since Wilson. So in light of my perception of the current state of affairs and what I think needs to be done to protect my family I stand on the side of the liberals. They just make more sense to me. They seem to know more about the real issues.

Finally, don't tell me that I can't stand to hear truths, just because I don't buy everything you say. I have no problem with truth - I just think it should proven and not accepted blindly.


Yes, well today there is a war on terrorism. There is an entire book of laws called the PATRIOT ACT that explains how terrorists will not be given the same due process that had previously been guaranteed by our Constitution to be extended to everyone, including mass murderers. So maybe calling anyone with a political view different than your own a terrorist is little excessive.


Yeah, that sounds like a personal problem.

raydan

Mostly moderates that prefer the idea of working within the current system to establish better laws to protect the people.

So many of the "better laws" were written without vision that would have enabled our lazy maybe corrupt congress to assess the unintended consequences. Does "we have to pass the bill to know what is init" strike a chord?

It would appear to a results oriented person that the primary goal of our esteemed member of both houses is to raise sufficient funds to get re elected, take responsibility for nothing, stay 20 years+ pass laws they don't live by and retire miult millionaires.

It is our fault that we allow the least among us to run things that have such importance in our lives.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, straightUp: I's difficult to understand what precisely it is you "mean". Jurisdiction is an over all concept of authority over the subject matter, for which a court or a body has the authority to rule or make determinations. My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, defines Jurisdiction as :
1. The right and power to interpret and apply the law.
2. Authority or control.
3. The extent of authority or control.
4. The territorial range of authority or control.

All of these definitions are over all concepts of authority over a subject matter or area. Your cited definitions of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, are also all concepts of authority over a subject matter. Nowhere in either dictionary definition is there listed a definition of "shrinking jurisdiction". That's your concept, and apparently you know what you "mean", but you fail to favor us with your definition, and neither dictionary evidences and nobody else knows, what in the h--- you mean. If a body has jurisdiction over a subject matter and determines to presently elect not to excerise a portion of their jurisdiction, that process would not change their over all jurisdiction, or their ability to exercise that jurisdiction in the future. Now, maybe you can favor us all with your definition of what it is you "mean".

usmc4

93%

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

I'm sorry. StraightUp is right. I didn't read the whole article. I became frustrated in the very beginning w/ the definition of neoliberalism. You see, we already have a label for color blind people that claim to believe in free markets and spend money irresponsibly on ever expanding social programs. We call these people Republicans.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, zonkedout1: $6 Trillion plus in additional national debt in some 4 1/2 years under Muslim Obama's unconstitutional acts and policies of "redistribution" trying to crater our country; and you assert that it is the Republicans spending money "irresponsibly" on ever expanding social programs. Which programs, by the way, were passed mostly in the first two years of his guidance, by democrats in the middle of the night without reading the bills. Let's see for starters: How about $800 Billion for Muslim Obama's "shovel ready jobs" that he later admitted never existed. Then there was Muslim Obama's Obama care, now projected to $3 Trillion in obligation and climbing as they read the 2700 pages of the law. If you were a conservative, I would read your statement as tongue in cheek. But since your not, I have to wonder about your stability and sanity.

zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming

You make some great assumptions. That's what I love. a) you don't think I'm a conservative. b) you don't think it's tongue in cheek. My point was that neoliberalism is an attempt by liberals to attract voters by picking out the best points of being a liberal. If you want to accuse me of not being a Republican. Fine. John McCain's a Republican. Since when did being a conservative mean I had to adhere to CrazyHorse standards. It think 'Conscience of a Conservative' is probably the gold standard. A brilliant book that unified a fiscal and social landscape of belief that came into fruition under Reagan. So, yeah, I'm not Phyllis Schlafly. My politics are morally ambiguous. I'm not quite as 'law and order' as a typical conservative because I've seen the failings of a system that claims moral superiority, but is also morally ambiguous. I've never voted for a Democrat in a national election (except to vote against Conrad Burn, crooked bastard tied up in Ibrahoff.) And, the only times I've done it locally is because the balance of power was getting to much done in government. I'm not a Republican, because no matter how great they are, they let tax payers fund inefficient programs to get their backs scratched as well. And when Obama comes 'round and announces his National Police Force, The old Guard will make their symbolic protestations and then just quit, because it has become a show to them, not a fight of any importance. I place more value in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than any other document written, much to the chagrin of my Sunday school teacher. And realize that if Republicans valued it, The 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th amendment rights wouldn't have disappeared under Bush, not that they haven't been in the ICU a long time before that ( ok, the 10th died under FDR)

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, zonkedout1: Well now, I might just have to rethink my view of zonkedout1. But I'll have to read some more to decide if you are worthy of "CrazyHorse standards" consideration.