It's just that some here seem to trot out "liberal" for anyone they disagree with. So much so it's become meaningless. Perhaps a more detailed analysis is appropriate rather than generic name calling?
Printable View
It's just that some here seem to trot out "liberal" for anyone they disagree with. So much so it's become meaningless. Perhaps a more detailed analysis is appropriate rather than generic name calling?
In the U.S. there were Republicans and Democrats, who ususally stood for there parties political dogma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Along came Rinos (Repulican in name only) and Democrats so far left that to call them a Dem. denies what the party once stood for, so Liberal, which is most accurate has become the more accurate term.
Dem. use the term Radical Right for Rep. that still honor what the Rep. party once stood for to them a Rino (which is Dem. light) is what they think all Rep. should be.
It is because of Rinos, not liberal Dem. that the T.E.A. party came to be, which is why the Dem. hate it so much as unlike Rinos who main concern is to remain in office, the T.E.A. party conservatives is to return the Rep. party to conservative standards.
If you think the term is meaningless look up on the net, what the liberal Dem. in the state of Wisconsin did when the Rep. governor challenged their politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/op...s.html?_r=2&hpQuote:
...if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along, Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Same old, same old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Luckily there is Bob Riebe the 'wise'. LOL
Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I would please ask you to refrain from throwing this thread into a personal battlefield which disrespects the original intent of this said thread.
thank you.
Nice idea but won't achieve a single thing.
In the UK people marched against the Iraq war, hunting ban, funding cuts, anti capitalism etc etc and guess what, yep nowt happened.
Rather than demos best way to hurt authority is cut off its funding, stop paying taxes / rates etc then they would have to take notice.
Duverger's Law suggests that in a plurality voting system, over time it should produce a tendency towards two-party politics. Really the only way to upset the system is to form a new party with sufficient clout to upend one of the existing two.
Especially in the United States where there is no direct opposition to the President in the mechanics of government (because he doesn't sit in the congress), it means that the job itself will only be a revolving door between two parties.
Small groups like the Tea Party, Occupy Wall St although they might help to colour the political discussion and may on odd occasions might see their ideas adopted by the exiting two majors, never can do much beyond that unless there is a seismic shift in the political landscape. The Lib Dems in the UK could have done that if Clegg hadn't been such an ultimately weak leader; in practice in the short term they'll occupy the same niche as the National Party does in Australian politics over the next few election cycles.
Currently in the US House of Representatives and the Senate there are ZERO "third" voices. Third Parties do exist but they contribute virtually to political discussion without solid representation because they don't have voices on the floors of houses.
Seemingly the American Public even if they complain, are through their current voting actions fine with this. If they weren't they'd do something concrete.
Amen, Bros and sisters, and yes, even you hos,
workers of the world, arise!!!!!
You have nothing to lose but your chains!!!
well, and also your jobs, or chances for a future job.....and your 401k....but hey, let not reality get in the way of brits having wet dreams...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Jethro, good to see the FBI ain't caught up with you yet....that rarefied air of being a professor must be getting them light headed