Dr. Tyler; Captain America

I remember the political compass. I can't remember what the website is, though.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the situation... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Nov30.html http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/02/...f.ap/index.html Personally, I think Rove & Co. made a huge mistake by issuing the tariffs to begin with. While I may not look like much of a free-marketer to most people (and, to some extent, I'm not; I'm often horrified when I read about the damage the WTO and World Bank do to third world countries), I acknowledge that tariffs and trade wars are a thing of the past. When Bush decided to pander to the steel interests and raise protective tariffs, some of us acknowledged that this could throw us into a trade war with Europe, and it's still quite possible that this still might happen. However, if he removes these tariffs, he risks losing Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia (steel producing states) in the 2004 election. On the other hand, if he starts a trade war, he could cede Florida, Iowa, and another state which I have currently forgotten. The reason for that being that the EU has threatened to tariff major products in those countries. If you were president and inhereted this problem (assume for a moment that it was already in affect; answering "not issue them in the first place" isn't the point), how would you get out of it? Personally, I don't think Bush has any choice but to bite the bullet and revoke the steel tariffs. He absolutely cannot afford to lose Florida -- as was proven in 2000 -- and he's damned either way. Thoughts?

Damn you kids and your newfangled educations!!1!

Yeah, basically

They also did nasty stuff about Clinton, and I presume they did the same about Bush I and Reagan as well. Any more Coulter nuggets? Yeah, nice generalization. Back it up.

They'll probably take one of the Democratic governors, like Richardson. The only one of the candidates that might be VP worthy is Edwards.

Actually...

Define your terms young fellah. What do you define as "modern liberalism" "libertarianism" and "modern conservatism"? ...I already did. Read the thread above. Modern liberal = equality, liberty, order. Libertarian = liberty, order, equality Modern Conservative = Mostly Libertarian Old liberal = Libertarian Tyler = Too tired to repeat this a hundred times.

...go pretend to get shot, asshole. Murderer. OMG FLAME BAITING OUTSIDE THE FLAME BAITING FOLDER!!11!

WTF! I wasn't in this thread!

You'd be correct to equate Episcopalians to Anglicans.

Because modern liberalism came into being with LBJ, who was president after Orwell died. Previously, "liberalism" was, more or less, what we consider "libertarianism." That is, as we both know, the basis of modern conservatism.

Oh, fair enough. Teaches me not to read the thread.

Episcopalian IS Protestant. If you're suggesting it's not, you're uh, wrong.

Both of the authors you suggested were actually talking about a different breed of conservatism and liberalism, being that they were both around in the first half of the 1900s. Since then, the definitions of liberalism and conservatism have, generally, switched places and become their opposites. Tyler > cerebus316

Yeah.

In terms of defining a political liberal, you'd have to define their positions relative to conservatism. However, traditional liberal ideas are inherent in conservatism, and vice versa with the current parties, so it's somewhat skewed. Modern (true) liberals value equality first, then liberty, then order. Conservatives value order, then liberty, then equality.

I perfer Orwell's definition "Liberal: A power worshiper without power." You would.

Kerry's biggest problem -- as I've stated several times -- is that he looks and sounds like he's dead. I heard he had prostate surgery sometime before the election cycle began (well, 2002ish), and it's been widely speculated in liberal circles that Kerry hasn't fully recovered his energy at all from that. I believe it; his campaigning has been shabby at best, and he's suffered from hiring utterly incompetent advisors (Jim Jordan, who was recently fired, comes to mind). He's basically run the worst campaign possible -- calling himself the frontrunner and then doing nothing to solidify it -- and doesn't have the image to support himself. Kerry DOES have good views on the issues, but he simply can't project them because he's either... A) Too tired B) Too busy attacking Dean C) Too busy looking at the polls. It's the difference between an inside-the-Beltway democrat and an outside-the-Beltway one; you need to be a fresh face to endear yourself to the public if you're going to be the "insider" type. He wouldn't make a good VP candidate, methinks, and I think the eventual nominee would be making a big mistake by picking him.

And O'Reilly can cross the line from inherently cruel to utterly comical on occasion, too

It's from the NY Post. Take it with a grain of salt.

Probably had something to do with Prime.

I'm mooching off of a friend's account myself. He'll never get it back.

Speaking of abortion...

Oh my God this game is addicting. If you start in Bastok, don't run into the gated caves in the mines. Little hint.