Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to If we use a normal definition for liberal.. IE NOT yours,

Re: If we use a normal definition for liberal
Tom Brosz — (archived)

Well, I'd probably stick Buck and Publius in there, although they don't post much, and Raoul. Certainly we can't forget L J!

Bowser's gone, which is too bad because he was probably worth 2 liberals all by himself. Splinx, too.

Just out of curiosity, how does your definition of "liberal" differ from mine?

Liberals seem to have a pretty solid idea of what a right-winger is, but are a bit fuzzy on being pinned down themselves.

Certainly the old classic definition doesn't work. And equating modern liberals with socialism pisses them off, despite the fact that they disagree with modern socialist positions on damn little.

Discard the "government ownership of assets" and see how many major policy gaps between the Democratic Party and the socialists that YOU can find. Of course, if you vote Green, that pretty much settles it.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (51 posts)