In article ,
Howard Berkowitz wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

Tell us again about coherent, non-binary, non-demonizing definitions of
"conservative" or of "liberal".

I'd rather just use the self-applied labels that many politicians and
their supporters use. Most of the folks who call themselves "liberals"
or are called that by their friends are, when you get right down to it,
not very "liberal" at all outside of a few, narrowly-defined opinions.
An old-time "liberal" would have been right in the forefront when
sending troops to fight a fascist dictator like Saddam Hussein, while
the modern breed is quite content to leave them be.

But you're right: when you get right down to it, "liberal" and
"conservative" have become effectively meaningless when referring to the
Democrat/Republican divide. You can get bizarre commonalities between
people like Jeremy Rifkin and Pat Buchanan, for example, who have very
similar opinions on much of the economy and foreign trade, but have some
sharp discontinuities on many other social beliefs.

Responses of I'm an XXX and everyone who
disagrees with me is a YYY are not responsive.

Neither is "define something for me and I'll nitpick it for a couple of
days."

For extra credit, reconcile your above statement with the ideas of
Jeremy Bentham.

So how many graduate-level credits do I get for it, who's doing the
grading, and what are their credentials?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.