# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Obama is not a liberal

## 56ktarget

One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:

1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
8. Disastrous negotiating on 2011 debt ceiling crisis, gave Boehner "98% of what he wanted"
9. Ran on the promise of ending wars, now is warmonger-in-chief
10. Has not changed the culture of corruption in Washington, lobbyists are more powerful then ever
11. Expresses disdain for actual liberals... see his comments on Elizabeth Warren
12. Supports Chained CPI for social security
13. Clearly an austerity advocate
14. Weak stimulus bill with most of it in massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations
15. endorsed lieberman (how did that turn out for ya?)

Libertarians need to understand that while us progressives  may not agree with them (at all) on economic policy, on social policy we can form a new coalition that can restore a functioning government in Washington.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Or, maybe we can use this list to update what the definition of a liberal is; seems like that's what already happens, anyways.

----------


## 56ktarget

By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.

----------


## twomp

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


I considered myself in your shoes at one point in time. Living here in California, most of the people I met thought the same politically. Through my time reading and discussing issues on this forum, I've come to learn something. Yes we may agree on social policy but if your solution for social reforms, or economic or any other reforms requires us to put our faith in the government then it will be hard to form any new coalition.

Our government in its current form is corrupt and has been bought and sold. The solution whatever it may be can not involve giving more trust and power to an institution that has sold us out.

----------


## silverhandorder

> By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.


Then those people are an extinct breed sitting on the margins with Ron Paul supporters . Welcome.

----------


## acptulsa

We all know that.  He's no more liberal than Romney, for example, or McCain, or any of the rest are conservative.

They're all warmongering corporatists.  No news here.  If they aren't warmongering corporatists, either you never hear of them at all or all you hear is that they 'aren't electable'.  And the sooner you Democrats figure that out, the sooner you can do for your party what we're trying to do for ours.

----------


## 56ktarget

> Then those people are an extinct breed sitting on the margins with Ron Paul supporters . Welcome.


Actually, there are more self-identified liberals that at any point since 1992
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5f6_story.html

----------


## Neil Desmond

> By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.


I understand what you mean, but there's still this: http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/1...dern-liberalis

----------


## twomp

> Actually, there are more self-identified liberals that at any point since 1992
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5f6_story.html




The majority of "liberals" are just about as brainwashed as the "conservatives." They do what MSNBC/CBS/ABC tells them just like how FOX news controls your counterparts. What will "liberals" do when it comes down to Clinton vs. Rand Paul? Probably just fall in line like media tells them to.

----------


## 56ktarget

Uhh what? Liberals have been steadfast in their opposition to intervention in Syria

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...3a8_story.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ria-96268.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The majority of "liberals" are just about as brainwashed as the "conservatives." They do what MSNBC/CBS/ABC tells them just like how FOX news controls your counterparts. What will "liberals" do when it comes down to Clinton vs. Rand Paul? Probably just fall in line like media tells them to.


I don't entirely blame "liberals" or "conservatives".  They are doing as they were programmed to do in the government schools.  Rare are people who don't...which is why they hate us "Paultards", libertarians, and other such nogoodniki.

----------


## 56ktarget

> I don't entirely blame "liberals" or "conservatives".  They are doing as they were programmed to do in the government schools.  Rare are people who don't...which is why they hate us "Paultards", libertarians, and other such nogoodniki.


Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

or maybe bush is a liberal and obama is a quasi socialist $#@!.

----------


## twomp

> Uhh what? Liberals have been steadfast in their opposition to intervention in Syria
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...3a8_story.html
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ria-96268.html


Are you serious? What about Libya? What about the daily bombings of people in mud houses in Yemen, Pakistan? Or are you a part of the "liberal" camp who believes that if you bomb people with remote control airplanes, it doesn't count as war?

----------


## AuH20

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


From my perspective that government is far too dominant & influential. I think it needs a major reduction. Now that's not to say that it can't implement some goals on your list but I think it's time to rethink the original vision. This thing has gotten out of control and only functions to fulfill it's own needs. Given the current trajectory of growth it's going to wipe us all out in the long run.

----------


## 56ktarget

> Are you serious? What about Libya? What about the daily bombings of people in mud houses in Yemen, Pakistan? Or are you a part of the "liberal" camp who believes that if you bomb people with remote control airplanes, it doesn't count as war?


Again, a misrepresentation of the actual liberal position. Please stop mistaking obama for a liberal.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...drone-strikes/

----------


## twomp

> Again, a misrepresentation of the actual liberal position. Please stop mistaking obama for a liberal.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...drone-strikes/


IF that were true, then why don't we see this anymore?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?


Civics and history classes come immediately to mind.  These are normally taught with a bias-either of the instructor of whoever writes the cirricula/textbooks/etc.  Some just teach what the dept of education says to teach.  The social sciences and liberal arts/sciences are also full of BS in most schools, but they're not as bad.

----------


## 56ktarget



----------


## enhanced_deficit

SWC Obama is neocons' plant and PR officer for bankers Oligarchy.

This is what a liberal sounds like:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FoRhM4o5Ks





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEScONfKqFk

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEScONfKqFk" target="_blank"    rel="nofollow">


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA6MCjGEsTg

Link : 
*Cornel West: Morally bankrupt Democrats call Bush "war criminal" but not Obama*

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


What is a Liberal in your mind? 

What you just called for is a combination of random expansions and cuts to government. Why do you trust Obama to run the health care system and regulate the financial markets, while you simultaneously don't trust him to operate an NSA spying program or Guantanamo Bay?

----------


## AuH20

American liberals are not as domineering and nefarious as Fabian Socialists. And that's the closest classification of one Barack Obama.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Again, a misrepresentation of the actual liberal position. Please stop mistaking obama for a liberal.
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/1...drone-strikes/


BTW, I agree that Liberalism is generally misunderstood by popular audiences.  Most self-proclaimed "liberals" don't understand what liberalism traditionally is either, though.Mises was not by any measure the first liberal, but his book "Liberalism" is the best I've read on the subject.

----------


## 56ktarget

> What is a Liberal in your mind? 
> 
> What you just called for is a combination of expansions and cuts to government. Why do you trust Obama to run the health care system and regulate the financial markets, while you simultaneously don't trust him to operate an NSA spying program or Guantanamo Bay?


Borrowed from wikipedia article about progressive caucas in Congress:

The CPC is committed to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Their policy agenda is rooted in four core principles: (1) fighting for economic justice and security in the U.S. and global economies; (2) protecting and preserving civil rights and civil liberties; (3) promoting global peace and security; and (4) strengthening environmental protection and energy independence. Their fundamental fairness plan reflects national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all Americans, not just the powerful and the privileged. Accordingly, the CPC also advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare", fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, US participation in international treaties such as the climate change related Kyoto Accords, strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class households, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.[6]

----------


## twomp

> 


There you go spinning thigns again. That was during the Syrian crisis when the ENTIRE country was against that issue not just the liberals. Why are they still not out there now? The drone bombings haven't stopped yet. I bet if someone with an (R) behind their name was president, we'd be seeing those anti-war lefties back out on the street. 

They aren't against the wars, they are against the wars being run with a president with an (R) behind his name. That goes the same for the conservatives as well. The sheeps on both sides just do as the television tells them to.

----------


## KCIndy

> 


Wow.

A close-up of a group of about a dozen very bored looking people... and they're *gasp* _holding signs!!_

You've sold me.  This is at least as good as a mob of 300,000 pissed off protesters shutting down streets in major cities.

----------


## 56ktarget

> There you go spinning thigns again. That was during the Syrian crisis when the ENTIRE country was against that issue not just the liberals. Why are they still not out there now? The drone bombings haven't stopped yet. I bet if someone with an (R) behind their name was president, we'd be seeing those anti-war lefties back out on the street.


Try closely examining the protesters. One seems to be holding a gay marriage flag. The rest of the crowd looks to be mostly latinos, a group that heavily supports obama.




> Wow.
> 
> A close-up of a group of about a dozen very bored looking people... and they're *gasp* _holding signs!!_
> 
> You've sold me. This is at least as good as a mob of 300,000 pissed off protesters shutting down streets in major cities.


I dont know if you realize this yet, but OBAMA DIDNT GO TO SYRIA. If he did and there were no protests, then you would have a point. As for the libya intervention, there were no boots on the ground and it only lasted a few months. Comparing these to the iraq war is asinine. 

As for the afghanistan war, we are heavily opposed to that as well. Try reading a few of the liberal-dominated comment section on nytimes article about afghanistan, they are all demanding for us to leave. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/wo...oll-finds.html

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Borrowed from wikipedia article about progressive caucas in Congress:
> 
> The CPC is committed to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Their policy agenda is rooted in four core principles: (1) fighting for economic justice and security in the U.S. and global economies; (2) protecting and preserving civil rights and civil liberties; (3) promoting global peace and security; and (4) strengthening environmental protection and energy independence. Their fundamental fairness plan reflects national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all Americans, not just the powerful and the privileged. Accordingly, the CPC also advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare", fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, US participation in international treaties such as the climate change related Kyoto Accords, strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class households, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.[6]


Now you're saying that Progressive=Liberal, when historically Liberalism was killed off as a movement by Progressivism and the two had little in common?

This article also confuses me. How are Progressives or Progressivism anti-war? The first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, was openly imperialistic and had the United States involved in numerous conflicts. The United States entered both World Wars, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and went to war with Al Qaeda in the 90s under Presidents who were known Progressives. Have Progressives not been a pro war group since the start? 

How are Progressives dedicated to defending Civil Liberties as the article states, while in the same paragraph it calls for higher taxes, trade restrictions, and restricting what I can sell my labor and buy someone's for? Are those somehow not Civil Liberties? Are the Right's to own a gun, plan my own retirement without government, or open a business on my own property without anyone else's permission not Civil Liberties?

And you did not answer my other question from before. Why do you trust Obama to run the health care system and regulate commerce, but not to spy on people with the NSA to try and ensure our safety?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> *Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007* 
> 
> By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, _National Journal_
> © National Journal Group Inc.
> Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
> 
> Sen. *Barack Obama*, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to _National Journal_'s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
> 
> Sen. *Hillary Rodham Clinton*, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by _NJ_ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator. In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said *Richard Lau*, a Rutgers University political scientist.


http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

----------


## twomp

> Try closely examining the protesters. One seems to be holding a gay marriage flag. The rest of the crowd looks to be mostly latinos, a group that heavily supports obama.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know if you realize this yet, but OBAMA DIDNT GO TO SYRIA. If he did and there were no protests, then you would have a point. As for the libya intervention, there were no boots on the ground and it only lasted a few months. Comparing these to the iraq war is asinine. 
> 
> As for the afghanistan war, we are heavily opposed to that as well. Try reading a few of the comments on nytimes article about afghanistan, they are all demanding for us to leave. 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/wo...oll-finds.html


You do realize the whole "boots on the ground argument" is an Obama argument right? It doesn't matter if there were no boots on the ground. Look at what the country looks like now? There was no Al Qaeda in Libya until Obama bombed that country into dust. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until Bush bombed that country into dust. We wrecked both those countries which were of NO THREAT to us. The fact that there was no boots on the ground means absolutely nothing. 

I am sorry if I seem hostile. It is actually a good thing that you are here engaging with us. I used to consider myself a "liberal" as well until 2011. Supported Obama in 2008 and all that until I saw what a liar he is. Welcome to the forums, be careful if you stay here too long. You might end up thinking like us.

----------


## 56ktarget

I'll have a response by tomorrow... probably going to be a long one.

----------


## silverhandorder

> Actually, there are more self-identified liberals that at any point since 1992
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...5f6_story.html


Actions matter more than words. Actions taken by the voting public is to put corporatist Obama in power. So good luck trying to bring on liberal utopia. I will laugh my ass off as I get rich in fascist hell.




> Uhh what? Liberals have been steadfast in their opposition to intervention in Syria
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...3a8_story.html
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ria-96268.html


Pretty much everyone was against intervention. It doesn't mean anything when you swim with the current. Where are they as far as global war on terror is concerned? They are all supporting Obama. Or at least not opposing him as they did Bush.  




> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?


Yes. When I was in school I was taught to Obey school rules without question. Not questioning authority? Is that what you want to teach your children? 

Zero tolerance is a code word used often. Obey your teachers even if you think they are wrong. Words often used by teachers called in to drag you off to  detention. 

This was in 2004 not in 1950s.

----------


## Rudeman

Just curious who is your ideal liberal politician (as in active and alive)? Also what are your thoughts on Hilliary and do you plan on voting for her?

----------


## Antischism

The OP is correct in that Obama is not a Liberal.

----------


## Peace Piper

> The OP is correct in that Obama is not a Liberal.


And Obungler himself agrees



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r-emodk73w

Obama: I'm a Moderate Republican Not a Socialist

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Borrowed from wikipedia article about progressive caucas in Congress:
> 
> The CPC is committed to government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Their policy agenda is rooted in four core principles: (1) fighting for economic justice and security in the U.S. and global economies; (2) protecting and preserving civil rights and civil liberties; (3) promoting global peace and security; and (4) strengthening environmental protection and energy independence. Their fundamental fairness plan reflects national priorities that are consistent with the values, needs, and hopes of all Americans, not just the powerful and the privileged. Accordingly, the CPC also advocates "universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare", fair trade agreements, living wage laws, the right of all workers to organize into labor unions and engage in collective bargaining, the abolition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the legalization of same-sex marriage, US participation in international treaties such as the climate change related Kyoto Accords, strict campaign finance reform laws, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on upper-middle and upper class households, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government.[6]


Here's the problem.  You look to the same government that you KNOW is corrupt as all hell to create your socialist utopia.  These same people are who are benefiting from passing special laws to give favor to their corporate cronies who line their own pockets and yet, you want to give that same government even more power.  Can't you see that the only answer is to take away the ability for government to hand out such favors by limiting their size and scope?  They can't hand out what they don't have access to.  That is the only way what you hate is going to be stopped. 

As far as the desire to steal money from those who earned it and give it to those who didn't, I can't help you there.  It's nothing more than using government to steal for you and it is morally corrupt.   But, if we had real capitalism in this country, everyone would be much better off financially. Instead of lining the pockets of the crooks in government and their cronies, we would be able to keep what we earned and even by our own individual choices, help those out who want and need a leg up.

Regarding "climate change", I do wish you would do a whole lot more research.  I'll just leave that here for now.  If nothing else, research what countries such a treaty would effect and what it would do to their economies.  Look into who is benefiting from this whole carbon tax deal and follow the money.  You say you are against corporatism, right?

----------


## Acala

> By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.


Meaning somebody who supports fiscal insolvency on a scale previously unknown in human history?  The flagship programs of the New Deal and Great Society are Social Security and Medicare, respectively.  Combined they represent approximately $70 TRILLION dollars in unfunded obligations. Those programs will ultimately fail to deliver on their promises because they are based on unsound economics and morals.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Understand how money works.  That'll fix you.

----------


## pcosmar

> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?


Yes. 
Here is a good video on the subject.




and here is another,

----------


## Origanalist

> I'll have a response by tomorrow... probably going to be a long one.


That should be a real treat, I just can't wait!

----------


## Origanalist

> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?


BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!

----------


## Cleaner44

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


I will agree with you that Obama is not a liberal, he is a corporatist that takes advantage of stupid liberal voters and their desire for stupid liberal policies.  Most liberals have a vision, not of freedom, but of safety and they want the government to do anything and everything to make that vision a reality.  I can't image why any self respecting liberal voter stands up for Obama when he is so clearly corrupt and doesn't even stand up for them.  Real liberals are a whole different problem than people like Obama.

----------


## Cap

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


Making quite an effort to keeping that left/right paradigm alive aren't you?

----------


## Todd

You are watching the third and fourth term of George W. Bush.  Bushy was anything BUT conservative.  Who cares about the Liberal label.  Same cloth different cut.

----------


## Acala

> Making quite an effort to keeping that left/right paradigm alive aren't you?


Exactly.  And the "No True Scotsman" fallacy makes a nice fit.

I almost never use the word "liberal" because it doesn't mean anything.  In fact, many, if not most, Ron Paul supporters are liberals in the classic sense.    The original meaning of the word "liberal" has been perverted and is now used mainly as a slur against the Democratic party rather than to convey any firm set of principles or ideas.     

From Wikipedia:

"According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[11] Consequently in the U.S., the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism, became the basis for the emerging school of right wing libertarian thought."

----------


## Todd

> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?





Where the hell do you wish to begin?

Let's also start Here.

----------


## jllundqu

> Understand how money works.  That'll fix you.


+ rep 

// thread

----------


## klamath

> Try closely examining the protesters. One seems to be holding a gay marriage flag. The rest of the crowd looks to be mostly latinos, a group that heavily supports obama.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know if you realize this yet, but OBAMA DIDNT GO TO SYRIA. If he did and there were no protests, then you would have a point. As for the libya intervention, *there were no boots on the ground and it only lasted a few months.* Comparing these to the iraq war is asinine. 
> 
> As for the afghanistan war, we are heavily opposed to that as well. Try reading a few of the liberal-dominated comment section on nytimes article about afghanistan, they are all demanding for us to leave. 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/wo...oll-finds.html


Yeaw Obama voters boots on the ground argument. Do you realized that a boot on the ground can look into the eyes of his target and still make a judgement call whether the target lives or dies.  A smart bomb does not care about making that judgement call. What makes you liberal think a smart bomb hurts less than a 5.56mm nato round? Libya is still a hell hole because of Obama liberal no boots on the ground war. Do you realize all the weapons that were in Libya's arsenal are the weapons that are feeding the killings in all of africa now.

----------


## Todd

> Yeaw Obama voters boots on the ground argument. Do you realized that a boot on the ground can look into the eyes of his target and still make a judgement call whether the target lives or dies.  A smart bomb does not care about making that judgement call. What makes you liberal think a smart bomb hurts less than a 5.56mm nato round? Libya is still a hell hole because of Obama liberal no boots on the ground war. Do you realize all the weapons that were in Libya's arsenal are the weapons that are feeding the killings in all of africa now.


It's the ol' "Our Wars are more moral than your Wars"  switcheroooney play.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Obama is for big government, so who cares about cable TV labels.  "Conservatives" are big government too.  The real issue is people like the OP--people who are unwilling to do the important things in life and then depend on everybody else to do it for them.

----------


## Todd

Funny how the OP disappears in all his threads when the Truth bombs start dropping.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Funny how the OP disappears in all his threads when the Truth bombs start dropping.


Yeah, that's pretty much how it works with "liberals" like the OP.  Libertarian forums like this weed out the weak arguments because the trolls run away.  DU, on the other hand, bans people very quickly.

----------


## oyarde

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


I agree he can never be a real liberal , or a real anything else . Just an evil Bolshevik , thief , destroyer of anything good .

----------


## acptulsa

> Funny how the OP disappears in all his threads when the Truth bombs start dropping.


Of course.  And long before someone asks, 'And who was it who installed this non-liberal in a position of power (while patting each other on the back and calling him Messiah)?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I'll have a response by tomorrow... probably going to be a long one.





I wonder where the OP went.  My theories are:


A. He was furiously typing away, googling for answers to all the replies to all his threads.  Fancy boy got so carried away that he broke several fingernails.  He cried so hard that the tears short-circuited his keyboard.

B. He felt so attacked in all his threads that he's filing a bullying case with local authorities.

C. He felt so attacked in all his threads that he's filing a discrimination case with the ACLU.

D. He literally $#@! himself when he couldn't answer all the charts in the gun thread.  There was so much crap on his pants, his chair, and the carpet that he ran out of cleaner.  He could not go to the store and buy more because he already spent every last penny of his welfare check.  
He'll clean it all next month and rejoin RPF on the 3rd.

----------


## klamath

I notice the modus operendi is the same with some of these progressive poster. They join, they posts scores of threads whit pregressive talking points, they argue a little and then they leave. I think it is because they spend so much time in an echo chamber of their progressive forums that they think their talking points are beyond question and blow every opposing ideology out of the water. They leave scratching their heads trying to find answers to the challenges to their illrefutable theories.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'll have a response by tomorrow... probably going to be a long one.


Is it tomorrow yet?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Is it tomorrow yet?


Yes - but it isn't over, yet.

----------


## Seraphim

A legacy of bankruptcy, moral decay and economic folly is something to preserve?




> By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.

----------


## compromise

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


1. The Bush tax cuts didn't go far enough, and he didn't renew "99%" of them
2. Obamacare is centralization, which is a modern liberal/progressive policy
3. He signed in Dodd Frank
4. True
5. They would also have made Theodore, Woodrow and FDR proud
6. Progressivism has many corporatist roots
7. True, but he appears to be coming over on that issue
8. In the end, the debt ceiling was raised, which is what progressives wanted
9. Bush also ran on an anti-war platform in 2000
10. Obama targeted conservative lobbyist groups in the IRS scandal
11. He has a history of association with the fringe left
12. True, but the real conservative position is privatizing SS altogether
13. Obama cuts spending by 0.001% in one area and increases spending by 50% in another, he's definitely a big spender
14. Still a stimulus plan on par with FDR's
15. Maybe because Lieberman is a liberal? The fact Lieberman endorsed McCain in '08 suggests McCain too is a liberal

----------


## erowe1

> Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama


Why would anything you said disappoint them? Obama is exactly what he always has been, and what he campaigned as.

Did you support him?

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Did you support him?


I'm wondering that myself.

----------


## 56ktarget

> Is it tomorrow yet?


Its exam week, I don't really have time to respond, Ill probably do it sunday or something.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Its exam week, I don't really have time to respond, Ill probably do it sunday or something.


Are you taking liberal arts?

----------


## jllundqu

Don't forget!  It's spelled Marx not Marks.... and the answer to every question on your test is "More Government"

----------


## Danke

> Its exam week, I don't really have time to respond, Ill probably do it sunday or something.


A student with no practical, real world experience.  I'm so surprised.

----------


## erowe1

> By liberal I mean somebody who supports the New Deal and the Great Society and wants to preserve the legacies of those programs.


I don't see anything about Obama that doesn't fit with wanting to preserve the legacies of those programs, and even expand them.

For that matter, almost all Republicans also want to preserve those programs.

Also, the kinds of things you list in the OP that are supposedly bad, don't they also seem to follow right along on the same trajectory of a lot of things FDR and LBJ did?

----------


## twomp

> So you thought progressives would rally ‘round Edward Snowden’s and Glenn Greenwald’s crusade to rid us of the NSA incubus that’s attached itself to our computers and our daily lives. Well, you were wrong: dead wrong.
> 
> *With a few notable exceptions, the "progressive" media matrix – the lefty pundits, thinktanks, academics, and activists who make up the Democratic party’s core intellectual constituency – have reacted to the Snowden revelations with hysterical denunciations, not of the government but of the leaker: the hate emanating from the MSNBC studios is hot enough to burn if you get too close to your television.* And it’s not just the pundits: Norman Soloman rightly called the response from progressive Democrats in Congress "murky," and that’s certainly an understatement. Sure, some of this can be attributed to partisanship, but there’s an ideological motivation for this illiberal stance as well.
> 
> The ideological roots of the anti-Snowden camp on (what passes for) the "Left" are fairly plain: *"progressives" have no principled objection to the Surveillance State.* This hardly comes as a shock: if one sees government as the end-all and be-all of human civilization, the one human agency that can save us from our ills and vices and make us whole again, then why would one object to government surveillance 24/7? After all, government is a benevolent force in our lives, a benefactor rather than an oppressor, and so what’s your problem? What do you have to hide?
> 
> Of course, the liberals of an earlier generation would have blanched at such a stance. Hadn’t they spent years fighting off J. Edgar Hoover and the Red Squads of the day, the McCarthys and HUAC? Hadn’t they founded the American Civil Liberties Union? Yet the left has undergone a dramatic transformation since the end of the cold war: whereas once the Left had championed civil liberties against those cold war conservatives who saw the Bill of Rights as an obstacle to be overcome, they have now switched polarities – so that ostensibly "right-wing" politicians like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) are leading the fight against the NSA, while the "left" (and by this I mean the moderate center-left) either defends the Obama administration or stays silent.


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...ittle-liberal/

----------


## Todd

> I'll have a response by tomorrow... probably going to be a long one.

----------


## osan

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


A main error here seems to be your apparent subscription to the validity of the notion of "liberal", presumably vis-a-vis "conservative", both of which are essentially meaningless terms as commonly used.  So long as you base your thinking along the foundations set by those at-best ill defined terms you will remain trapped in a world of hamster wheels - possibly running for all your legs will carry you, yet going absolutely nowhere.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't think your average liberal has very much in common with us.  The closest thing would probably be someone like Kucinich.  Ron Paul and Kucinich had common ground on certain issues but I don't think they really believed in close enough to the same thing to form a coalition.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007

*Now he's probably whatever the Bilderberg puppet masters tell him to be.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Its exam week, I don't really have time to respond, Ill probably do it sunday *or something*.


Yeah, "or something."  LOL. 

This must be a ratio record for number of threads versus number of days a troll has lasted.

----------


## 56ktarget

> Just curious who is your ideal liberal politician (as in active and alive)? Also what are your thoughts on Hilliary and do you plan on voting for her?


Hillary is another corporatist democrat who will sell this nation out to the highest bidder. Even though I know she's our best chance to win another term, I hope someone like Elizabeth Warren or Howard Dean runs to force her to the left.




> 1. The Bush tax cuts didn't go far enough, and he didn't renew "99%" of them
> 2. Obamacare is centralization, which is a modern liberal/progressive policy
> 3. He signed in Dodd Frank
> 4. True
> 5. They would also have made Theodore, Woodrow and FDR proud
> 6. Progressivism has many corporatist roots
> 7. True, but he appears to be coming over on that issue
> 8. In the end, the debt ceiling was raised, which is what progressives wanted
> 9. Bush also ran on an anti-war platform in 2000
> ...


1. Uhh what? Obamacare was a conservative plan cooked up by the heritage foundation. It was endorsed by Nixon, Gingrich, and the first bush. A republican governor implemented it in massachusetts and said it should be "a model for the nation."
3. It was a watered-down bill with no real reform to prevent another financial crisis. 
8. Actually the debt ceiling increase was bipartisan
10. LMAO!!! The IRS director was a conservative who targeted both tea party AND progressive groups. Look it up lol.
11. Like who? He disdains even moderate liberals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3EVoF-LUdU
12. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." 
Eisenhower 
13. Is that why he has the slowest growth in spending in history? :
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/
14. The stimulus was only about 800-900 billion, which was only very inadequate. Most economists agreed it needed to be 2-3 times bigger. Not to mention about a third of it was in useless tax cuts.
15. LMAO? Are you seriously suggesting lieberman is a liberal? Hes the nitwit who filibustered the public option and medicare buy in and all the other cost control measures in obamacare.




> A student with no practical, real world experience. I'm so surprised.


I love the disdain for education among libertarians.




> I don't think your average liberal has very much in common with us. The closest thing would probably be someone like Kucinich. Ron Paul and Kucinich had common ground on certain issues but I don't think they really believed in close enough to the same thing to form a coalition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.


Please stop claiming Kucinich as one of your own. He is way left of obama on virtually every issue. He not only supports a single payer health care system, but wants to ban handguns, and restore the Fairness Doctrine. 

EDIT: I misunderstood your post, my bad.




> *Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
> 
> *Now he's probably whatever the Bilderberg puppet masters tell him to be.


Thats only because he voted "present" on virtually every controversial issue. Now we know why...



On a side note, does anyone know where some of the posts went? I was looking forward to rebutting them, but it seems half of them have disappeared...

----------


## Neil Desmond

> On a side note, does anyone know where some of the posts went? I was looking forward to rebutting them, but it seems half of them have disappeared...


Sometimes I myself can't find some threads I post or reply to, either.  There might be a bug with the forum.  Try doing a search for your own username in the search or using google to search this site; you might find them that way.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> On a side note, does anyone know where some of the posts went? I was looking forward to rebutting them, but it seems half of them have disappeared...


You made three other threads and have not commented on any of those since you took your exams.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It is just the political pendulum swinging farther right.  Many people who were considered "conservative" 30 years ago would be called "liberal" today.  Conservatives moved farther right and liberals including Obama moved more in that direction to fill the void as well.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> It is just the political pendulum swinging farther right.  Many people who were considered "conservative" 30 years ago would be called "liberal" today.  Conservatives moved farther right and liberals including Obama moved more in that direction to fill the void as well.


To people who consider them one one side of the false choice political spectrum, it's moving farther in the opposite direction of whatever side they're on.  Things are actually moving more towards authoritarianism and farther away from libertarianism/anarchism.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> To people who consider them one one side of the false choice political spectrum, it's moving farther in the opposite direction of whatever side they're on.  Things are actually moving more towards authoritarianism and farther away from libertarianism/anarchism.



I agree.

I'd say it's a qualitative and not quantitative difference.  The thinking is totally different.    


Cable TV:    liberal <------------------------------------------------> conservative

Reality:       freedom <----------------------------------------------> conservative-liberal

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I agree.
> 
> I'd say it's a qualitative and not quantitative difference.  The thinking is totally different.    
> 
> 
> Cable TV:    liberal <------------------------------------------------> conservative
> 
> Reality:       freedom <----------------------------------------------> conservative-liberal


Exactly, TV.  It's TV programming - programming and conditioning how we think and what we think about.

----------


## Danke

> I love the disdain for education among libertarians.


I'm a libertarian?

The so-called "education" topic has been answered by many already in this thread.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Thats only because he voted "present" on virtually every controversial issue. Now we know why...





> *Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
> 
> *By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, _National Journal_
> 
> © National Journal Group Inc.
> Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008 
> 
> Sen. *Barack Obama*, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to _National Journal_'s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
> 
> Sen. *Hillary Rodham Clinton*, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by _NJ_ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator. In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said *Richard Lau*, a Rutgers University political scientist.


http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

Care to guess again?

----------


## Verrater

> Hillary is another corporatist democrat who will sell this nation out to the highest bidder. Even though I know she's our best chance to win another term, I hope someone like Elizabeth Warren or Howard Dean runs to force her to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Uhh what? Obamacare was a conservative plan cooked up by the heritage foundation. It was endorsed by Nixon, Gingrich, and the first bush. A republican governor implemented it in Massachusetts and said it should be "a model for the nation."


For some further enlightenment:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...age/52951140/1
Not that I'm trying to take up for Heritage, they didn't as a group endorse the plan.

To call Obamacare conservative is an oxymoron. Nixon, Gingrich, Bush are not conservative. Just as the Bush admin didn't come up with the patriot act, it was actually constructed by Joe Biden. Are you beginning to see that the parties are not so different? It's not that this side is acting like that side or vice versa, it's the reality that both sides are inherently progressives.




> 3.(Dodd Frank) It was a watered-down bill with no real reform to prevent another financial crisis.


The only thing you're right about, is it not being able to prevent a financial crisis.



> 8. Actually the debt ceiling increase was bipartisan


yup, see above. Progressive ideology permeates both parties.



> 10. LMAO!!! The IRS director was a conservative who targeted both tea party AND progressive groups. Look it up lol.


Lie.
Shulman and his wife are avowed progressive activists.




> 11. Like who? He disdains even moderate liberals: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3EVoF-LUdU


Bill Ayers, Frank Davis, Tony Rezko, etc 




> 12. "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." 
> Eisenhower



That isn't an argument.




> 





> 13. Is that why he has the slowest growth in spending in history? :
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-has-lowest-s/


Bias website is bias.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...nservative.php





> 14. The stimulus was only about 800-900 billion, which was only very inadequate. Most economists agreed it needed to be 2-3 times bigger. Not to mention about a third of it was in useless tax cuts.


"Most economists" No, what you meant to say was "progressive economists".
It clearly did not work. There should have been return on investment if there was. Simply claiming "oh it would have been worse had we not done it" is not backed up by anything other than rhetoric.




> 15. LMAO? Are you seriously suggesting lieberman is a liberal? Hes the nitwit who filibustered the public option and medicare buy in and all the other cost control measures in obamacare.


Nope, progressive. 
You can't use one example of a contradictory nature to discredit the claim, it's logically fallacious.





> I love the disdain for education among libertarians.


We don't have a disdain for education, we have a disdain for public indoctrination centers that show little to no improvement over time with an exponential increase in funding.




> Please stop claiming Kucinich as one of your own. He is way left of obama on virtually every issue. He not only supports a single payer health care system, but wants to ban handguns, and restore the Fairness Doctrine.


I don't claim him, I just find him to be one of the very few intellectually honest modern liberal politicians to still exist. He's often chastised by the majority of democrats for his non progressive views and that endears him to many libertarians.

----------


## Philhelm

> Can you point to any specific types of indoctrination that occur in our nation's schools?


Pledge of Allegiance.  Next question.

----------


## Unregistered

Obama is not a Liberal. He's a Communist. Therefore the statement that "Libertarians need to understand..........Washington', is false.

"Libertarians need to understand that while us progressives  may not agree with them (at all) on economic policy, on social policy we can form a new coalition that can restore a functioning government in Washington". 


One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:

1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
8. Disastrous negotiating on 2011 debt ceiling crisis, gave Boehner "98% of what he wanted"
9. Ran on the promise of ending wars, now is warmonger-in-chief
10. Has not changed the culture of corruption in Washington, lobbyists are more powerful then ever
11. Expresses disdain for actual liberals... see his comments on Elizabeth Warren
12. Supports Chained CPI for social security
13. Clearly an austerity advocate
14. Weak stimulus bill with most of it in massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations
15. endorsed lieberman (how did that turn out for ya?)

[/QUOTE]

----------


## Unregistered

obama is not a liberal or a democrat he is a National Socialist

----------


## MRK

The OP is trying to reach out and build a coalition, and you all are telling him why he is wrong in his other beliefs.

I am baffled by all the posters who seek to debunk the virtues of so-called liberalism on a thread where a guy is trying to build a coalition. 99 times out of 100 a person is not going to change his views due to a barrage of arguments on an internet forum.

The OP is asking for ways to cross-identify with the social progressives and the social libertarians to form an effective coalition to further mutual goals today. I find this to be a noble effort, considering the tactic of trying to get 60% to move to one side from the other 300 years from now is probably not going to work before we're all in the metaphorical FEMA camps.

It's easy to recite the defense of your beliefs, but it's not easy to reach out and review the concerns of the "other team" to find areas of agreement and work with these people to build progress. I understand that. But at least try to do so, or don't get in the way of others who are trying to do so. This is not compromise we're talking about here, this is both parties getting what they want without any compromises; the only parties that will lose out will be the corporatist cartels.

What do you do at work when you are put on a team with someone whom you despise? Do you just tell them why they're a bad employee and why they're doing the work the wrong way and not end up getting anything done?

I am tired of the echo chamber pack mentality crap. Wake up and stop getting red team blue teamed.

----------


## Dianne

> One of the many misconceptions that ron paul supporters believe in is that they think obama is a liberal. I assure you, he is not. Real liberals have been very disappointed with obama, as he has adopted many policies that are to the right of ronald reagan. He is also a complete corporatist stooge that is entirely in the pockets of the establishment. These are just a short list of reasons from a true liberal:
> 
> 1. Renewed 99% of Bush tax cuts
> 2. No public option, medicare buy in, or drug price negotiation in Obamacare
> 3. Weak financial reform, no reinstatement of glass-steagall
> 4. Supports TPP, which is like NAFTA on steroids
> 5. NSA/Patriot act/guantanamo/Civil Liberties violations that would make Cheney proud
> 6. His entire cabinet is filled with corporatists... real progressives knew it was all over when he appointed Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff
> 7. Still opposed to marijuana legalization
> ...


He is not a liberal or conservative; he is a terrorist.   He cares nothing about the U.S., outside of destroying the country and taking Israel with it.     I hope the country learns not to again elect someone they know nothing about.   Obama's entire life exists in sealed records.    All known family members are either illegal immigrants in the U.S., or extreme muslim terrorists.    Put two and two together and it's not difficult to know Obama is not from around these parts.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...and you all are telling him why he is wrong in his other beliefs.


.
Well, I'd say read all the threads he composed.  Seems his goal is to tell everyone why they're wrong.





> The OP is asking for ways to cross-identify with the social progressives and the social libertarians to form an effective coalition to further mutual goals today.


.
The OP is basically trolling.  I'd say he has little to nothing in common with liberty minded people.  Differences look more qualitative than quantitative.
It's also just an inconsequential forum.





> What do you do at work when you are put on a team with someone whom you despise? Do you just tell them why they're a bad employee and why they're doing the work the wrong way and not end up getting anything done?


There's a big difference between your example and somebody who starts a job and immediately tells everyone why they are doing everything wrong.  OP is really not interested in this forum or learning anything.  His introduction to himself was basically arguments.  He got his butt handed to him, got neg reps, and then likely started a new thread as a guest so he would not get neg reps.  The discussion on that topic could actually be interesting, but that was abandoned too.

----------


## ex-artillery

So Obama's just a corporate liberal just like most (all?) Democratic party establishment politicians. Corporate liberals use the rhetoric of welfare liberalism to garner the support of their base and prop up the state monopoly capitalist system. The only true welfare liberals were those like Dennis Kucinich.

----------


## klamath

> The OP is trying to reach out and build a coalition, and you all are telling him why he is wrong in his other beliefs.
> 
> I am baffled by all the posters who seek to debunk the virtues of so-called liberalism on a thread where a guy is trying to build a coalition. 99 times out of 100 a person is not going to change his views due to a barrage of arguments on an internet forum.
> 
> The OP is asking for ways to cross-identify with the social progressives and the social libertarians to form an effective coalition to further mutual goals today. I find this to be a noble effort, considering the tactic of trying to get 60% to move to one side from the other 300 years from now is probably not going to work before we're all in the metaphorical FEMA camps.
> 
> It's easy to recite the defense of your beliefs, but it's not easy to reach out and review the concerns of the "other team" to find areas of agreement and work with these people to build progress. I understand that. But at least try to do so, or don't get in the way of others who are trying to do so. This is not compromise we're talking about here, this is both parties getting what they want without any compromises; the only parties that will lose out will be the corporatist cartels.
> 
> What do you do at work when you are put on a team with someone whom you despise? Do you just tell them why they're a bad employee and why they're doing the work the wrong way and not end up getting anything done?
> ...


I would have agreed with you until he posted this. It is the classic blue team line to defend Obama's wars. He REALLY does support Obama and would never support someone like Rand.



> I dont know if you realize this yet, but OBAMA DIDNT GO TO SYRIA. If he did and there were no protests, then you would have a point. As for the libya intervention,* there were no boots on the ground* and it only lasted a few months. Comparing these to the iraq war is asinine. 
> 
>  As for the afghanistan war, we are heavily opposed to that as well. Try reading a few of the liberal-dominated comment section on nytimes article about afghanistan, they are all demanding for us to leave.

----------

