Lucky...

One certainly has: Look! No giant brain! Come on, it took her 8 years (or something like that) to get one of the easiest degrees out there, journalism, and after that she couldn't name 1 media publication or 1 SCOTUS decision, not even the Heller decision (which just came down a couple months b4 the CC interview) and she's the biggest gun nut almost in Washington. Everyone can have a bad day.

But corporations are people. So you kinda contradict there.

Neo-conservatism renders the primordial concept of: Liberal = bad Conservatism = good with no explanation of why. Lincoln was probably the most liberal of all presidents, yet he was also the 1st Republican, not considering the Democrat-Republican Party. Today's Republicans would have been 1860's Democrats. I can't think of a time when liberal reform wasn't beneficial to/for most. - Slavery abolition - Woman's suffrage - 1964 Civil Rights Act Today's Republicans seem to think that Dems have always been the liberals and R's always conservative. Around Wilson's time they switched positions. Liberal has always meant, "progressive" but Democrat hasn't always meant, "liberal."

Concur. How very Libertarian of you, lefty. Until you need the gov to force a greasy corp to act right or need social svs.....thne it's HELP ME GUBBMENT.... after that it's back to wanting a small gov.

Mostly because I don't agree with a number of assumptions they've made, I don't like two dimensional testing as a means for judging ones worth and they've never revealed their methodology. In other words, I think the test is flawed to begin with. I don't think anyone is talking about "judging one's worth.". Really? Because I think that's the entire direction of this thread. That somehow "right wing" equals "right way" and "liberal" equals "wrong way" when in fact most people on this forum don't even have an accurate description of what the word "liberal" means. Or what ringht wing and left wing mean and the origin of the terms.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880 FDR actually prolonged high unemployment: he tripled taxes; he signed laws that made it more expensive for employers to hire people, made discounting illegal, and authorized the destruction of food; and he launched costly infrastructure projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority that became a drag on states receiving TVA-subsidized electricity. FDR tripled taxes, as in tripled the tax rate? Here's a great and dominant counter to your theory; it was Hoover raised the top marginal bracket 260% with the revenue act of 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 The Revenue Act of 1932 (June 6, 1932, ch. 209, 47 Stat. 169) raised United States tax rates across the board, with the rate on top incomes rising from 25 percent to 63 percent. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15 percent. Before you continue to make unfounded and incorrect, and of course the usual unsubstantiated claims, just pass on by. IT IS YOUR RW RAGS THAT PROLIFERATE THE LIES AND GARBAGE.....CONSTANTLY.

Why is it that conservatives run to spelling/typos? I really know, that was rhetorical.

Leber or Lebert, depending upon how you split 11 letters. It also depends if you invent a new spelling for the term. I think we're onto a new political party here.

Right, but Libertarians are simply disgruntled Repubs; this is their way of rebelling. Look at Ron Paul, running back and forth as a Liber, then Repub, repeat several times. See, Libertarians claim they feel that the gov should stay out of our lives and keep taxes low, yet you just don't see them at pro-choice rallies and I'm sure not at gay ralleys, etc. However, they live at tea bagger ralleys and the sort. They claim stem cell research should be done, they GET FUCKING PISSED AT ANY TAX INCREASE. So they can check the box on leftist moral issues and beat the street with vigor on fiscal issues, rendering them Republicans who arean't moralists, which is all Libertarians are. Yep, Quade has his political fixation just perfect Billvon is a true Libertarian, not just a pissed off Republican. Bill (errantly) thinks low taxes actually help the economy, but he truly wants the gov out of our lives in the form of intrusions about abortion, sexuality and other moral issues. Don't confuse Bill for a liberal, he has liberal positions, but not in the form of taxation. With that said, he isn't a dominant Libertarian in regard to fiscal issues, IOW's he doesn't cringe when Clinton raises the top marginal brkt from 31% to 40% as a typical pissed off Republican trying to understand fiscal policy would, Bill realizes that Reaganomics was stupid and that lowering taxes with moderation and common sense TO A REASONABLE POINT is fiscal responsibility. Most moronic Libertarians actually think that lowering taxes even more rather than implementing the stimulus, and letting teh banks fail would have been better; these morons can't read about history such as with the Great Depression and realize that would be a recipe for disaster. Even tho Bill is wrong, IMO, about lower taxes to a point leading to all around prosperity, he isn't so fanatical that he wants to lower it to 25%, 20%, 15% and keep going. He knows trickle-down failed twice; Hoover and Reagan and wouldn't advocate corporate takeovers as a good thing. He realizes that a combination of corporate control AND government redistribution is the key to fiscal success. The only rub I have with Bill is that he wants more corporate control and less gov redistribution than I do, but we're not off by a lot; I don't want complete Socialism. Right, lower case meaning Libertarians won't lose sleep if gay marriage is permanently struck down with the 28th Amendment and Abortion struck down too. Their social side is just a rationalization to pretend not to be Republican. More than you credit; dominant Conservatives are just lock-stepped drones who refuse to buck their leaders like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Only one what? BTW, the deadline for sucking up has passed. Most what? Well, maybe socially passive. Socially liberal means you actually give a shit that gays can marry, most peopel here are social passivists. Yea, as well most social Nazis are just lock-stepped Republicans keeping the moral vote on the right side of the isle. Remember, true GOPers are just the Limbaugh variety who really don't care about moral issues, just greed. They realize tehy need the moral vote so they throw the religious nuts a bone every now and then. The fiscal side is what really defines a person's political position. As for voluntarily, that means, "Fuck off and deal with it;" we get it. Of course, unless it invloves a good ole boy RWer, then social svs are right it line an fair. Conservitards are a joke; they decry socialism until they need it. I know so many so-called conservatives who do just that; SO FUCKING MANY. Just like with social issues, fiscal issues render the same kinds of idiots who slam the gavel and then sneak around the backside to be the hypocrites that they are. There is no distinction, take a liberal or a conservative and put them in need and watch them run for the social nipple at the same speed, diff is that the conservitard will then IMMEDIATELY turn and denounce socialism as justify his recent freebies as warranted for reasons X, Y and Z. Right, teh baseline is healthcare, so what you're saying is the fight is over the baseline; couldn't agree more.

Outstanding, I think we're on to something here. Bill, you're a duck and know a lot of people, maybe you can quack off some e-mails for us? My sisters name is Michel Quackenbush. No lie. WOW! Michel, what an odd name. A quackenbush is a drill feed in my world. They are big drills that turn slowly and feed into large lugs as they are slipped into a jig/fixture. They are used to drill large, precision holes.

all the mods here are white - where are the black/brown mods There is one and he's conservative. Can't think of his name.

True. I had a big discussion with a Candian who considered himself a far right conservative and hated liberalism. I explained that we were talking on different scales and he eventually got it. He didn't think soc meds was a liberal concept.

Leber or Lebert, depending upon how you split 11 letters.

Well put. It's about #1 survival #2 reproduction #3 skydiving

it seems that you are saying that you only have morals if you are a left leaner. How would anyone get that????? Morally left means: - Pro-gay marriage - Pro-Choice - Etc Morally right: - Anti-gay marriage - Pro-life - Etc Bizzare, that's all I can say; how do you draw that from me stating, "morally left?"

Orher than Eloy, That may well be true! You ever been to Eloy? I don't mean Skydive AZ, I mean the city of Eloy. It looks like like Watts. Drug crime, mostly minority; Latino, American Indian, etc. It's a rundown slum for the most part once you get a mile from the DZ.

Naw, I'd hammer the south to clean up the, you know, _ _ _ necks.

what is a "white name" ?? David? Paul? John? Why does a certain name say "white" to you? WOOOOOSHHHHHHHH!!! Obviously, you didn't get my sarcasm. I was illustrating the racist nature of this thread.

OMG, and they conspire against all people not wearing Nazi arm bands BTW, if you've read Bill's views on fiscal policy, he's a classic Libertarian; morally left, fiscally right.

Don't silence the thread, just ban the thread starter

They have laxatives you know.

Not only that about Tom, but you are harder on other libs than you are on RWers, so the thread starter should enjoy the lattitude, not that he's a common PAer.

They are completely different disasters, one natural, one man-made. One had ample warning, one had none. GWB didn't act for a week, then did on harrassment from the nation. Obama has to let the corporations, who know the most about this, handle this; his job is to lean on them to fix this and pay for this, they are doing that as best they can. I don't see where Obama has failed the nation here. He is responsible for prudent dealings with this mess, not the mess itself, just as GWB wasn't obviously responsible for Katrina, but responsible for a lackluster response. People that are such strong supporters of Obama that they have gotten tingles up the leg (Chris Matthews) have been saying really bad things about Obama's performance in this matter (including James Carville). Why should I argue about their judgment in this regard? Are you better than Carville and Matthews at analyzing whether Obama has performed well in this crisis? They say he's a do-nothing, an observer... 1) Love your Rushesque way of saying something while saying nothing. IOW's, why not pass along their criicism of Obama. 2) I also heard these 2 guys like classic Coke over Pepsi, so I'll just lemming along and agree. 3) I am critical of Obama in that he didn't use tax dollars and send a bunch of unemployed people down there to save the wildlife, of course compassionate Republicans (barf) agree as they are also conservationists.

They are completely different disasters, one natural, one man-made. One had ample warning, one had none. GWB didn't act for a week, then did on harrassment from the nation. Obama has to let the corporations, who know the most about this, handle this; his job is to lean on them to fix this and pay for this, they are doing that as best they can. I don't see where Obama has failed the nation here. He is responsible for prudent dealings with this mess, not the mess itself, just as GWB wasn't obviously responsible for Katrina, but responsible for a lackluster response. Your history re-writes are a funny as always Your one-liners are needless as always. Just because you respond doesn't mean you address, you have to actually sunstantively say something relevant to be counted as a response.

I know, they should stick with white names. What is a "White" name? Why do there have to be "Black Names"? to help seperate them from everyday people more? Guess what, not needed! Most people can tell by looking at soemone that they are Black, they don't need unpronounceable names! I see those freakass names as a way of handycapping yoru child right from the start! Teachers can never get their name right on the first day of school, so they get laughed at by the other kids out right out the gate... BTW, check any Afriacan phone book....you wont fina a Sheniqua anywhere![/cool] I'm just saying I agree with you, everyone needs to assimilate to white America cause we were here first...... oh wait, it was the American Indian and a whole series of other civilizations. If you want to be named whatever, or name your kids whatever, go ahead. Wouldn't you support the fight against giv intrusion into people's lives and families? Or is that selective.