The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:22 pm**

JSPB22 wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:And your definition of liberal sounds nice but has no corrolation with the Democratic party

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Give that man a cigar! You FINALLY got it, Kaz. Good for you.

Questions:

1) So why didn't you get I got it when I kept saying a true liberal would be a political libertarian? Didn't that indicate I "got" it that Democrats aren't true liberals?

2) Why do you have such a hard time disagreeing with Democrats then if you're a "liberal" but not a Democrat?

3) Why don't you ever yourself actually raise the point Democrats are not liberals instead of just getting upset when I criticize "liberals?"

4) Why don't you ever criticize Democrats for not being liberal?

In the end you're just playing word games. When I talk about liberals and am clearly referring to the so called American Left, you could just say the American Left isn't liberal rather then responding with vague points that don't make the distinction you're referring to here either.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:31 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:... And your definition of liberal sounds nice but has no corrolation with the Democratic party who are clearly advocating MASSIVE government CONTROL, not regulation of things like retirement, medical care, energy, pharmiceuticals.
You are right. My definition of LIBERAL has no "correlation" with the Democratic Party ... or the Republican Party either.

The philosophical points driven by Irn Bru and myself just do not click, do they?

Let me try to help you out here: semantics in economic philosophy is quite a bit different when it comes down to the term LIBERAL than the semantics of the term LIBERAL in American Politics.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:They are destroying capitalism with our tax structure and endless socialism enacted THROUGH corporations like unions, government "certifications," minimum wage. Name any Democrat who remotely advocates your definition of liberal.

Following your own thoughts, the Republicans are just as bad and George W is probably the worst of the lot, Right?

For the millionth time, YES! You may have noticed (sarcasticly, obviously you haven't) I usually call myself a libertarian, but occasionally I call myself a conservative. But I generally don't becuase Republicans are NOT conservative in any way. Not fiscally to your point, which I say OVER AND OVER AND OVER

Again: ](*,)

I've also REPEATEDLY said the Republicans aren't militarily conservative because they don't want to mind their own business but everyone elses, a true conservative would not be in the middle east at all, much less invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've also frequently made the point a TRUE conservative would not want the GOVERNMENT to be the morality police either. A true conservative would be a POLITICAL libertarian, just like a true LIBERAL would.

I just don't know how many times I can say Republicans aren't conservative and Democrats aren't liberal without it being ignored and occasionally processed as a statement out of the blue, like here, rather then my REPEATED position.

But here's the difference. I NEVER support Republican positions, liberals only hear criticizm of Democrats as "Republican." Even liberals who say they are liberals and Democrats are not. ](*,)

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:39 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Following your own thoughts, the Republicans are just as bad and George W is probably the worst of the lot, Right?

On Bush, what part of I'm a libertarian, not a Republican don't you get? How many times have I said I haven't voted for a Republican for President since 1988 and generally not for other offices don't you get? What about my saying what a horrible president he is every time I refer to him is unclear? I've trotted out this laundry list of grievences against him so often it's pathetic. The prescription drug givaway, the TSA massive growth in government, the anti-free speech campaign finance he signed, endless pork barrel like the 300 Billion transportation bill w/ almost no transportation in it, the financial services so called bail out. I oppose Iraq AND Afghanistan and want our military out of the world ultimately from EVERY sovereign country except ours. The ONLY thing he's done I support is cutting taxes, and then the moron made taxes more complex it doing it.

George Bush SUCKS. But he's not running for President right now. So I don't know why I need to address him at this moment.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:43 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Questions:

1) So why didn't you get I got it when I kept saying a true liberal would be a political libertarian? Didn't that indicate I "got" it that Democrats aren't true liberals?

So, you have been calling -EVERYBODY- a liberal as a form of PRAISE??? :shock:

2) Why do you have such a hard time disagreeing with Democrats then if you're a "liberal" but not a Democrat?

Because Republicans behave sometimes less as LIBERALS than the Democrats do. Clinton was a more LIBERAL President than George W but not because he was a Democrat. Simply because he handled the economy better.

3) Why don't you ever yourself actually raise the point Democrats are not liberals instead of just getting upset when I criticize "liberals?"

Because there are better and worse Democrats and there are better and worse Republicans. Neither Party is entirely good nor bad. Making either the good or bad is a Pharisean view. You know that from your background.

4) Why don't you ever criticize Democrats for not being liberal?

I do. But I cannot demonise everybody. If you read a few posts above, I am a pragmatic person. I will take the best or rather LEAST damaging practical option available.

In the end you're just playing word games. When I talk about liberals and am clearly referring to the so called American Left, you could just say the American Left isn't liberal rather then responding with vague points that don't make the distinction you're referring to here either.

The traditional American bipolar spectrum of Democrats and Republicans does not exhaust all the political options available in the real world. There are some so called "conservatives" which are closer to State-run morals and economies than many liberals in any connotation of the term.

By the way, the next time you call somebody a LIBERAl, Could you please clarify if it means s left-Liberal, a classic-liberal, or a social liberal??? Some might be insulted or praised by either one of those denotations. :wink:

CHECK HERE

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:48 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:Questions:

1) So why didn't you get I got it when I kept saying a true liberal would be a political libertarian? Didn't that indicate I "got" it that Democrats aren't true liberals?

So, you have been calling -EVERYBODY- a liberal as a form of PRAISE???

Um...no as a criticizm. I'm in the twilight zone. Everyone wants government to solve their problems for them. Lawyers, solving their problems. That's why I said I give up. Both parties want that. In what possible way is that "praise" for everyone?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:52 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:Clinton was a more LIBERAL President than George W but not because he was a Democrat. Simply because he handled the economy better

Both of them proposed government as a solution for everything, but Bush got it and Clinton didn't. How does that make Clinton more "liberal?" How does it mean he handled the economy "better" when the only difference was Congress said "no" to him. Clearly out of Republican partisanship since they proved their willingness to spend other people's money like drunken sailors when THEY were in the White House.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:14 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:... I usually call myself a libertarian, but occasionally I call myself a conservative. But I generally don't becuase Republicans are NOT conservative in any way ...

Where is the semantic definition of conservative in political philosophy?

For a simple description of the POLITICAL AMBIGUITY of the term CLICK HERE.

Almost -ANYBODY- can call him/herself conservative of some cultural, political or economic values and principles -regardless- of their political ideology :shock:

You seem to mean "Conservative Libertarian" but there is an abyss of differences between the terms conservative and conservative libertarian.

I've also REPEATEDLY said the Republicans aren't militarily conservative because ...

Where is the ideological textbook on "conservative military"??? Anybody from any ideological background can have a different or the same military strategy. There is no such thing as a "conservative military policy". Either a military policy is effective and achieves its goals and objectives or it does not. Like the NFL, a conservative military philosophy is not aggressive enough when it needs to. Is that it?

The creation and implementation of military strategy has absolutely NOTHING to do intrinsically with conservative or liberal philosophical views.

I've also frequently made the point a TRUE conservative would not want the GOVERNMENT to be the morality police either...

If the definition of conservative is conservatism of values, why aren't Evangelical fanatics not allowed to conserve their views and call themselves conservatives? Because you say so? Mmmmm.

You are gooing to have a tough time convincing a few fellows everywhere that your brand of conservatism is the "true" brand of conservatism in the abstract when confronted with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

I just don't know how many times I can say Republicans aren't conservative and Democrats aren't liberal without it being ignored and occasionally processed as a statement out of the blue, like here, rather then my REPEATED position.

How many times? As many times as ambiguous terms are used to try to make points in which a one-man semantics is attempted.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:27 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Both of them proposed government as a solution for everything, but Bush got it and Clinton didn't...

And that is the subtle difference that allows a person to distinguish from among shades of gray as opposed to black and white.

In your world of black and white, both Presidents would not be "conservative" enough for you. Both are bad.

In my world of shades of gray, Clinton handed better economic results than George W ever did or will. None did what I would have wanted them to do but I am able to recognise better from worse.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 8:51 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:In your world of black and white...

In my world of shades of gray...

Dream on

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:07 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:In your world of black and white...

In my world of shades of gray...

Dream on

Give up?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:20 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:In your world of black and white...

In my world of shades of gray...

Dream on
Give up?

Give up what?

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:10 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
I've also REPEATEDLY said the Republicans aren't militarily conservative because ...
Where is the ideological textbook on "conservative military"???

Show me any reasonable definition of "conservative" that advocates "nation building" or interfering in the affairs of others, particularly with the use of the military. Republicans got into Iraq under the proximate rationale of "terrorism," which would make sense if it were not belied by the underlying issue of oil. We are clearly NOT in many parts of the world that are as bad as the Middle East, but have no oil. A true "conservative" would not advocate a presence in the middle east in the first place and would question the underlying issue that the reason terrorists attack us there is because we did not belong there in the first place. This does not justify the terrorists. If you walk through a bad neighborhood and are robbed, it doesn't justify the criminal who robbed you. But you don't walk through bad neighborhoods if you are overwhelmingly likely to be robbed there. And if you are robbed while walking through the neighborhood while you would call the cops, you would also realize you should not have been there in the first place either.

And Iraq is a great demonstration the Democrats are not liberal either. There is nothing liberal about escallating a war in Iraq for eight years and then turning on it when you lose political power. In fact it could be more liberal for liberals to support Iraq and Afghanistan just becuase they attempt to free 50 million people from the terrorists running their governments for their sake. Fifty million people who became irrelevant to the Democrats when Republicans took the White House from them. Furthermore it's not "liberal" to scream for cheap oil while actually OPPOSING all all significant realistic alternatives and then washing their hands they were just "opposing" a policy and yet are driving us to continue it.

RIC wrote:The creation and implementation of military strategy has absolutely NOTHING to do intrinsically with conservative or liberal philosophical views.

Yes and no. So in the Middle East, yes, a conservative or a liberal could theoretically support or oppose American involvement, but the way the Republicans are doing it is fundamentally inconsistent with "conservatism" because of what we are doing and the way both the Democrats and the International Left are oppsing it is fundamentally inconsistent with "liberalism" because it places their political objectives above their ideology.

RIC wrote:You are gooing to have a tough time convincing a few fellows everywhere that your brand of conservatism is the "true" brand of conservatism in the abstract when confronted with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

I don't have to convince them of anything. I'm stating my view on a message board. So sue me. But they are at best contradictory in conservatism. They say government is inept and corrupt (true) for the things they don't want and call for "small government." Then they contradict that by assigning the task of "small government" to include being morality police and ignore both the consequence of that (e.g., the war on drugs funding organized crime) and the ineffectiveness of it (e.g., we have the drugs anyway).

Same with the Left again. They say they want government to help people and yet ignore that their policies (e.g., the war on poverty) not only don't work but create a permanent class of people dependent on government and they don't care because of the political gain that they then vote for Democrats. There is nothing liberal about that.

RIC wrote:Give up?

If you mean by do I "give up" trying to win a labelling war against liberalism, I concede that. Liberals are the master labelers, and I surrender. :hail:

But I haven't seen you advocate anything liberal, ever. I reject using irrelevant stats like measureing deficits in nominal values and making misleading implications using the irrelevant stats. And anyone who has any belief and runs to government as a solution ignoring the inherent corruptness and inefficiency of government and the resultant results that are counter to doing so as both conservatives and liberals do in and outside this country is in my view not true to their ideology. Anyone who truly believes in anything would demand results and the first inherent step in that endeavor is to demand governemnt stay OUT of it, not solve it for them when the inevitable result is the opposite of their belief.

I will modify my statement that any true liberal or conservative would be a political libertarian to be more broadly that ANYONE with ANY belief would be a political libertarian. Only the lazy (moral, economic, whatever) turn to government as a solution for anything.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:13 pm**

sweet Jesus that's a long post

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:49 pm**

We're getting into RayNMan territory, as far as length is concerned.

Posted: **Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:51 pm**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I don't have to convince them of anything. I'm stating my view on a message board. So sue me. But they are at best contradictory in conservatism. They say government is inept and corrupt (true) for the things they don't want and call for "small government." Then they contradict that by assigning the task of "small government" to include being morality police and ignore both the consequence of that (e.g., the war on drugs funding organized crime) and the ineffectiveness of it (e.g., we have the drugs anyway).

Heroic!

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:49 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:
I've also REPEATEDLY said the Republicans aren't militarily conservative because ...
Where is the ideological textbook on "conservative military"???

Show me any reasonable definition of "conservative" that advocates "nation building" or interfering in the affairs of others, particularly with the use of the military.

Glad you ask:

The entire History of the United States of America is filled with a countless list of armed conflicts and interference in the affairs of other States. (Or read instead the controversial A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn)

For a country with less than a short 235 years of existence, the USA has fought and won more wars within and outside its territory than almost any other country I can think of. It is sometimes a painful history. It is sometimes a glorious history.

In fact, it is easier to ask what country would the USA may not have fought against throughout its entire history than to compile a complete list of adversaries. Your neighbours are no exception:

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the shores of Tripoli ...

In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes ...

Of course, anybody can argue that the USA is or is not a "conservative" country. But nobody can argue that, under any definition, it has had conservative and liberal governments who have acted violently against others in defense of its interests. Sometimes legitimately and others illegitimately.

Republicans got into Iraq under the proximate rationale of "terrorism," which would make sense if it were not belied by the underlying issue of oil.

I do not feel that any rational individual today would argue that the MANNER in which that war was initiated and managed, particularly the ensuing occupation, was legal or well implemented. Recent reviews conducted by the US DoD point at inherent flaws in planning (or lack thereof) after the initial brilliant military victory.

I assure you that oil is only one factor involved in this conflict and your sentence is a tremendously gross over-simplification of several legitimate concerns for security that the US has in the Middle East.

We are clearly NOT in many parts of the world that are as bad as the Middle East, but have no oil.

Yes, you are. You may not know it (or even the form) but you are.

A true "conservative" would not advocate a presence in the middle east in the first place and would question the underlying issue that the reason terrorists attack us there is because we did not belong there in the first place.

WRONG. Conservatives -and- Liberals, Americans in general, have NO OPTION but to have a presence in the Middle East.

This is not an ideological issue, it is a geopolitical and international security issue.

This does not justify the terrorists. If you walk through a bad neighborhood and are robbed, it doesn't justify the criminal who robbed you. But you don't walk through bad neighborhoods if you are overwhelmingly likely to be robbed there. And if you are robbed while walking through the neighborhood while you would call the cops, you would also realize you should not have been there in the first place either.

Peace in the Middle East or at least the development of confidence building measures, like it or not, cannot and will not take place without the most important player for Arabs and Jews in the region. The assistance that the US government provides to Israel and Egypt, for example, is key to their peaceful survival.

And Iraq is a great demonstration the Democrats are not liberal either.

The mistake of Iraq transcends political lines because it is not an ideological creation. It is a geopolitical issue.

RIC wrote:The creation and implementation of military strategy has absolutely NOTHING to do intrinsically with conservative or liberal philosophical views.

Yes and no.

A least G.F. Hegel developed (after Kant) his own dialecticwhen he links yes and no in the same proposition with a conjunction. At least he conceived a thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis in order to get away with the most important violation in Western two-value logic: true or false.

So in the Middle East, yes, a conservative or a liberal could theoretically support or oppose American involvement, but the way the Republicans are doing it is fundamentally inconsistent with "conservatism" because of what we are doing and the way both the Democrats and the International Left are oppsing it is fundamentally inconsistent with "liberalism" because it places their political objectives above their ideology.

Are you trying to suggest for a slight second that the job of any political leader of any persuasion, take a conservative as an example, is not to advance the national interests (economical, political, diplomatic, ideas, etc) of his State???

THAT is the job of ANY government leaders regardless of their political persuasion!!! Surely that must be achieved under international law and hopefully through cooperative and peaceful means but war is also contemplated as a legitimate response in certain circumstances under international law, particularly as a proportional response to armed aggression.

RIC wrote:You are going to have a tough time convincing a few fellows everywhere that your brand of conservatism is the "true" brand of conservatism in the abstract when confronted with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.

I don't have to convince them of anything. I'm stating my view on a message board. So sue me. But they are at best contradictory in conservatism.

So, the "true" conservative is Kazoo. Those religious conservatives are impostors or living contradictions.

I am sure Cheney and Rumsfeld are shaking in their boots as a result of the threat to be called also "false conservatives".

RIC wrote:Give up?
If you mean by do I "give up" trying to win a labelling war against liberalism, I concede that. Liberals are the master labelers, and I surrender.

As they say in military engagements: I accept your terms.

But I haven't seen you advocate anything liberal, ever.

True. I rarely get involved in political discussions in this board.

Only the lazy (moral, economic, whatever) turn to government as a solution for anything.

Who do you go to when a law is violated against you? #-o

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:57 pm**

Another stock battering
Dow ends down 514 points, Nasdaq at 5-year low as weak earnings, slumping oil prices add to recession fears.

By Alexandra Twin, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 22, 2008: 4:21 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Another turbulent day on Wall Street left an exhausted Dow down more than 500 points Wednesday, as weak earnings and slumping oil prices amplified fears of a global recession.

...

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:20 pm**

The lower it goes now, the better off we'll be in the long run.

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:50 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:The lower it goes now, the better off we'll be in the long run.

What do you mean?

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:37 pm**

In general, just a "no it's not" form of "debating." That you agreed with nothing I said considering my points were all over the spectrum is not realistically possible. Though I believe you probably in your mind THOUGHT you did at the moment you wrote it. But that's a job for your therapist, not me.

Redskin in Canada wrote:I am sure Cheney and Rumsfeld are shaking in their boots as a result of the threat to be called also "false conservatives"

These are just continual idiotic comments you make. Try to process this unsuccessfully. I have my opinion. I don't CARE how anyone "feels" about them, that's just a major delusion on your part. The psychological term for what you are doing is "projection." You think I would care what they think because you DO care.

RIC wrote:Who do you go to when a law is violated against you?

The Indian rule. Duh, dar, you're an ANARCHIST, duh, dar. :roll:

When you were posting all those definitions, you should have read some of them. A libertarian's not actually an anarchist.

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:46 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:
But I haven't seen you advocate anything liberal, ever.
True. I rarely get involved in political discussions in this board.

Um..OK. You rarely do, let's go with that.

But on my statement, sorry, I hosed it. You read it right, I said it wrong. What I meant to say was 100% of every post you've made has been American Democratic Party liberalism, which is the same as the International Left. Every point you bring up supports Democratic positions and delusions. Hate America, tax and spend, Democratic party line talking points.

There is NOTHING I have ever seen you say that separates you from them ever. That's what I meant. You make political Democratic Party comments CONSTANTLY. You NEVER demonstrate this so called liberal ideology you claim that isn't Democratic party liberalism. I know you're Canadian (or say you are). I'm just saying your views are the same, which is why everything you say supports them, based on all the emperical evidence provided by yourself so far.

My FAVORITE was how Clinton managed the economy better then Bush when I pointed out their spend thrift policies were the same and the difference was the Congress said no to Slick and yes to W, you said he still gets credit for it even so. In a million years you would NEVER give credit to a Republican President who got a "no" from a Democratic Congress, you'd be crediting the Congress. So Democrat.

Posted: **Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:13 pm**

Cappster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:The lower it goes now, the better off we'll be in the long run.
What do you mean?

An economic bubble is essentially an excess of credit that redirects capital to inefficient uses and props up bad investments. In order for any recovery to take place, the bad investments have to be liquidated and repositioned.

Right now just about everything the government is doing is aimed at propping up the failed investments and not letting businesses fail or the stock market to decline significantly. But it's important that bad investments of little or no value be recognized as such, because it's the only way to real recovery and subsequent growth.

When the DOW drops like it has been, that just is one of the signs of the kind of liquidation that our economy needs.

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:07 am**

Cappster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:The lower it goes now, the better off we'll be in the long run.
What do you mean?

Let me give -another- angle. The lower they go, the larger the market correction can become.

However, the larger the correction becomes, the larger the immediate negative impact on many jobs and credit availability becomes too. The crisis will go into a RECESSION (mild, a year or so, or deeper, longer than a year) and it has potential to become a DEPRESSION.

At the same time, the CORRECTION is urgently needed to allow the market its healthy course and weed out inefficient money-losing companies and funds.

The question politicians are meddling with is of course whether government has a role (they already decided yes) and to what extent (the size of the bailout and other goodies) in trying to control the size of the CORRECTION by paradoxically trying to save inefficient operations but maintaining some level of employment and credit availability so that a large number of people do not lose their jobs and homes. Tough question in an election year, I might add.

Either way, there is no free lunch. Whatever subsidy goes into the market, the people pay with lower pension funds, lower value of the dollar, higher inflation and higher taxes and tax rates. Government does not create wealth. It can only print new bills and create a proportional amount of inflation in the process.

Along those lines, look:

81,312 homes lost to foreclosure in September[
The number of foreclosure notices dipped from a record high in August, but was still up 21% from last year.

By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer
October 23, 2008: 5:01 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The housing crisis still has a choke hold on America: In September, 81,312 homes were lost to foreclosure according to RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/23/real_es ... 2008102305

And ...

Shares slide amid recession fears
German traders
Once again, investors are worried about a global recession

European share indexes have fallen further, as fears of a global recession swept through the major markets.

The FTSE-100 index was down 2.5% or 99.7 points at 3941.2 by early afternoon, with France's Cac 40 down 3.3% and Germany's Dax down 3.8%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7685639.stm

MARKET DATA - TODAY 12:46 UK

Code: Select all

FTSE_100    3950.45down   -90.44    -2.24%
Dax         4391.02down   -180.05    -3.94%
Cac_40      3204.54down   -93.64    -2.84%
Dow Jones   8519.21down   -514.45    -5.69%
Nasdaq      1615.75down   -80.93    -4.77%
BBC_Global  4690.30down   -20.65    -0.44%

Bleeding in red ink and still falling ...

Not good on a personal basis if you expect a pension, hold a portfolio, or have a large mortgage). :cry:

Or good on a personal basis if you have savings, do not need an employment and have no mortgage. :lol:

Either way, the social cost of greed and irresponsibility will be VERY HIGH. :cry:

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:39 am**

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What I meant to say was 100% of every post you've made has been American Democratic Party liberalism, which is the same as the International Left. Every point you bring up supports Democratic positions and delusions. Hate America, tax and spend, Democratic party line talking points.

There is NOTHING I have ever seen you say that separates you from them ever. That's what I meant. ...

If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, are not "true conservatives", NOBODY seats to your right. Caveat:, well, you could have ultra-nationalist neo-fascists, KKK and a few other orthodox fundamentalists of any religious denomination but mighty few more.

That is OK. It is a FREE country (less as a result of the crisis but nevertheless more free than others).

Indeed, I am far away from the views of the Evangelical Right and the Hawks in DC. But I am not a US Democratic Party follower. Hell, I am not even an American. :shock:

ANYBODY will be called a "liberal" by you, even if you have recognised in this thread the misuse of the term. When an adjective is used in such a generalised manner, it loses its meaning completely. The only message that it can potentially send is that you disagree. We'll record it along those lines in future.

We are good brother. No problem. :wink:

Posted: **Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:02 am**

A few definitions might become useful in this thread:

Recession

What is a Recession?

Depression

What is a Depression?

Recession? Depression? What's the difference? What's a recession? How do we know if we're in one?

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bailout bill fails; Dow plunges