Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I disagree. The definition of a liberal is one who is in favor of less regulation. Its been twisted sideways by the assholes who think govt interference is a form of liberty, but the definitions of "liberal" are (from Google):

# broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
# having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
# big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
# a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
# free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

I don't see anything there that says "favoring govt interference."

Yes you do. It's in the 5th definition in that a liberal would require government to be fond openhanded grandfathers with my goddamn money.

[Gattigap]

Might be dumb as a bag of hammers, but at least Smilin' Pat is always good for a quote. From his 700 Club show:

• On today’s “700 Club” broadcast, the Rev. Pat Robertson responded to criticism from the Right regarding the Miers nomination and also offered a stern warning to those conservative senators who might be thinking of voting against her. Rev. Robertson suggested that people should look at who is supporting Miers before they doubt her conservative credentials. He named James Dobson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Jay Sekulow of the Robertson-founded American Center for Law and Justice, and himself as proof of support for Miers’ nomination from the Right. Robertson concluded by noting: “These so-called movement conservatives don’t have much of a following, the ones that I’m aware of. And you just marvel, these are the senators, some of them who voted to confirm the general counsel of the ACLU to the Supreme Court, and she was voted in almost unanimously. And you say, ‘now they’re going to turn against a Christian who is a conservative picked by a conservative President and they’re going to vote against her for confirmation?’ Not on your sweet life, if they want to stay in office.”

Penske, it's time to pray. Rub that babyjesus, and get the Religious Right off the backs of those brave GOP Senators!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
Okay. As long as you understand that, when I say "Kerry is an ultra-liberal", you know that I am using the word in its present twisted form, that's fine.

In most of the world the term neo-liberal means a hard core free market capitalist. In America the word has not caught on you. The economist is definitely a neo-liberal magazine. But America we don't really have that term. Liberal in America has come to mean someone who believes in big government and higher taxes.

I would like the term liberal to be taken back by the free enterpirze small government people like it has been taken back in the rest of the world.

On Economics I am a Neo-liberal
On social issues I am a liberal.
On social engineering issues (like affirmative action) I am against social engineering so I think that should make me a liberal, but that is not true in this country and I don't know how the rest of the world looks at it.
On foreign policy I am a neo-conservative. I don't know how that falls into the liberal conservative bent as far as the trational way to look at it.


I am a liberal that does not like government intervention in most anything. However, I like the idea of using the big hand of government to spread liberal ideas and institutions around the world.

I do like government intervening to protect the environment and to provide a safety net. Those positions should be considered conservative but are considered liberal in this country.

[Replaced_Texan]

Damnit, why the fuck is this stuff illegal? They spend shitloads of money fighting a stupid drug war on a substance that no one cares about, if the stuff was legal, they could regulate and more importantly, tax the fuck out of it, and the economy would benefit. Or at least be happy.

Makes no fucking sense to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Damnit, why the fuck is this stuff illegal? They spend shitloads of money fighting a stupid drug war on a substance that no one cares about, if the stuff was legal, they could regulate and more importantly, tax the fuck out of it, and the economy would benefit. Or at least be happy.

Makes no fucking sense to me.

you do realize the whole _-fecta racing was dreamed up on dope?

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Damnit, why the fuck is this stuff illegal? They spend shitloads of money fighting a stupid drug war on a substance that no one cares about, if the stuff was legal, they could regulate and more importantly, tax the fuck out of it, and the economy would benefit. Or at least be happy.

Makes no fucking sense to me.

The bit about the change in THC levels is interesting. I'm not gettin' old -- the dope's gettin' stronger!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm not gettin' old -- the dope's gettin' stronger!

They're not mutually exclusive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Damnit, why the fuck is this stuff illegal? They spend shitloads of money fighting a stupid drug war on a substance that no one cares about, if the stuff was legal, they could regulate and more importantly, tax the fuck out of it, and the economy would benefit. Or at least be happy.

Makes no fucking sense to me.

Pot will always be illegal because (I think):

1. Its too easy to hide (people could do it all the time and get away with it);

2. The masses aren't smart enough to behave sensibly/safely on it (some of us could perform open heart surgery baked; some of us can't figure out the remote when mildly high)... so the fears of some acting in a hazardous fashion ruit it for all;

3. Its not really in line with the "boundless work ethic and endless" energy Americans like to think they have;

4. It causes people to slow down and think about things outside their job or "productive tasks" (we can't suffer a nation of dazed artists).

If they invented/discovered alcohol only 200 years ago, it would be illegal as well.

But who cares? Pot is de facto legal everywhere. Law enforcement hasn't a prayer of even denting the pot trade. And no one even cares about it anymore. My relatives smoke it. Most docs I know smoke it. My folks' friends smoke it. My sister and I freely talk about it at home. I barely know a soul who hasn't tried it, and I don't know anyone who's against using it responsibly to have a good time. So who really cares what the Govt thinks?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But who cares? Pot is de facto legal everywhere.

But, harder and harder to find for forty-something lawyers in the midwest. Its illegality does have consequences for some people.

Originally posted by bilmore
But, harder and harder to find for forty-something lawyers in the midwest. Its illegality does have consequences for some people.

Flower cut you off, huh? Stingy bastard.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm middle of the road and I hate her.

Sebby --

You ain't in the middle of anyone's road. You are up on the precipice overlooking the road, keeping one bloodshot eye on the travellers below and baying at the moon.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Um, no, that's "libertarian." Not even close to "liberal."

Not any more. But it is the original mening of the term. You should know that. You were around in the 19th century.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Penske, it's time to pray. Rub that babyjesus,. . .

I've never heard it called that before . . .


S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Really? Are you aware that McCain has one of the most conservative records in the Senate on abortion and gun control. I think he has a 100% rating from most right to life groups and from the NRA.

McCain is a great guy and I think the fact that he is a great guy has made its way through most media filters. However, I don't think many Dems are going to keep their support once they see how he is voted on stuff. But I could be wrong.

I don't like his stance on many issues, inclusing campaign finance, but I would vote for him. But I am not a Dem. Knowing what you know about his record you would still vote for him over most Dems?

I am aware of his stances on abortion and gun control. I don't worry about the former because he'll never actually be able to effect change and I don't care about the latter because the people on the right side of the gun control debate will never be able to effect change.

I didn't say that I woud vote for him over most Dems. I said I would favor him over any of the likely nominees. If the Dems actually nominate someone who has a reasonable plan and the credibility to convince me em'll actually try to implement it, I'd vote for the Dem.

But we both know that ain't gonna happen. Any more than McCain getting the nod ffom youse guyz.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not any more. But it is the original mening of the term. You should know that. You were around in the 19th century.

I stuck around at St. Petersburg . . .

(ETA - Oops.)