Somehow No One Seems To Think

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not _all_ period abolitionists had good intentions for freed
> slaves.(example, Van Buren) Many abolitionist wanted to return freed
> slaves to Liberia, FACT.

Interesting side note: Many ex-slaves moved to Liberia where they instituted
slavery.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Republican'ts can't get anything right.

Haliburton's profits are up - that's something.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Paul G.]

On Mar 28, 3:16 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 3:53 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2:27 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 1:12 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > -Um- the federal payroll shrank under Clinton ...
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms...
>
> > Good stuff- shows how remarkably successful Clinton was, if you
> > understand it. I do, but I don't think you do. Note that debt/GDP
> > soared under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, yet dropped during both of
> > Clinton's terms. That's a remarkable achievement, given the fiscal
> > mess he inherited from Bush I, and the fact Bush II inherited a budget
> > surplus.
>
> > But I didn't see anything there specifically about the federal
> > payroll, so it's really a non-sequitur.
>
> I don't care about the federal payroll as much as all federal
> spending.

Fine. Look at it, then. It's there labeled "Federal Spending" and
"Increase" in the last table. Just looking at the year with the
largest spending increase for each President:
Reagan 7.4% in 1985
Bush I 6.1% in 1990
Clinton 2.5% in 2000
Bush II 6.0% in 2002

Notice that Clinton's largest increase was less than half that of each
of the Republican'ts. This is why I'm a Clinton fan. I'm a fiscal
conservative, and he did a fantastic job compared the the
Republican'ts. Study that table. That's reality. Your problem is
you're gullible and swallow the propaganda without checking the
facts.

> I also care about federal regulations that causes spending
> in the private sector in order to comply (hidden taxes outside the
> federal budget).

Maybe you should move somewhere with no regulations, see how you like
it. Try this: make a list of places with no regulations, and a list of
places with strong regulations. Which is a list of places you'd prefer
to live? That's reality.

> I don't know why you are hyper-focused on payroll.

That's what you were responding to. I can certainly work with other
measures, as I just did with the rate of federal spending increase.

> I gave you the concise wiki page on federal spending, and of course,
> it shows that it did not go down under Clinton.

It didn't go up as fast under Clinton as it did under Reagan, Bush I,
and Bush II. That's reality- study that table. Notice how it's the
opposite of what you thought it was. Now why is that? You
rightwingers are so gullible.
-Paul

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Regarding past Republican Presidents spending versus President Clinton's
spending Paul asks;

>It didn't go up as fast under Clinton as it
>did under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. That's reality-
>study that table. Notice how it's the opposite of what
>you thought it was. Now why is that?

Cold Wars & Wars on Terrorism cost more than incinerating Branch
Davidians?

just regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Regarding past Republican Presidents spending versus President Clinton's
> spending Paul asks;
>
>>It didn't go up as fast under Clinton as it
>>did under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. That's reality-
>>study that table. Notice how it's the opposite of what
>>you thought it was. Now why is that?
>
> Cold Wars & Wars on Terrorism cost more than incinerating Branch
> Davidians?

Anytime you can murder innocent civilians you can teach the rest that
socialism is much better.

 

[Michael Baldwin]

>Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
>country as we now know it.

Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: [email protected]
(Paul G.)

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Michael Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
>country as we now know it.

Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: [email protected]
(Paul G.)

Well I don't think that you could be more significant than that. What do you
want to bet that changes of that nature would be far and away from what Paul
G. would actually want? However, silly people often cut their own throats
trying to ******** all of the authority figures around them.

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:4495a5b6-d2a5-401d-97e3-76c8feae4a58@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Clinton produced 4 budget surpluses.
>
> All that surplus and yet the national debt continued to grow every year
> under Clinton. I'm impressed with your bookkeeping.

Hmm, a quick look at the Wiki page that Greg linked to earlier says you're correct
for his first term but not to the levels you wish it to be. The Fed debt grew by
13.2% in his first term and shrank by .2% in his second. Reagan, on the other hand,
saw increases of 49.9% and 40.2%.

> > The reality is that Clinton was fiscally responsible, the
> > Republican't can't stop spending spending spending.
>
> So fiscally responsible that he threw away the Reagan boom and ended up
> fathering the dot-com bust which was a huge market loss that cut the average
> stock return in half.

Clinton didn't *cause* the dotcom bust. That was greedy speculators who got the
idea that doing things their way was good during the Reagan years. You really need to
read some *real* econ sources.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <9fc26e78-dee8-4f4d-95e8-348599c6223c@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 12:01 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >  [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
> >
> > > Ron wrote
> >
> > > >I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives
> > > >and libertarians are frequently mistaken for one another. It's a
> > > >mixed blessing in that they are often forced to make
> > > >common cause, but good that they can.
> >
> > >  Ron, I think you meant to write _Liberals_ and not "libertarians".
> > >   I'm of _Libertarian_ persuasion.  My personal philosophy is "the
> > > reward of freedom is responsibility".  I cannot imagine a Liberal ever
> > > repeating those words little alone living by them.  
> >
> >    You'd be surprised, Mike.
>
> Its been a long cold wait. For a "liberal" to do so requires them to
> be fork-tongued. That they are.

Well, Greg, I think that you're probably ignoring that happening far more often
than you want to believe.

> Snakes -- I keep pet snakes.

Me too - just not the sort you think you do.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <291bf40c-5fdc-424a-8cb7-db291af78978@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 2:53 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> And a lot of that is because if I haven't responded vigorously enough to whatever
> > you're demanding to know, you jump to the most extreme conclusion. Kind
> > of like you do with groups like MoveOn or the Obama campaign.

> http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/14/war/
>
> The antiwar movement prepares to escalate
> The day the war starts, organizers vow to shut down financial
> districts -- and even infiltrate a key U.S. Air Force base.
>
> By Michelle Goldberg
>
> Pages 1 2 Share
> Mar 14, 2003 | If bombs start falling on Iraq, peace activists say,
> expect insurgency at home.
>
> http://bayareadirectaction.wordpress.com/
> http://tinyurl.com/2qzmcf
> Howard there's a ton more out there, you know it too, but I'll give
> you the point that the most disruptive seem to have turned on MoveOn,
> despite taking their money.

Sure, I know about those kinds of things. But I'm trying to make the point that
with the overwhelming majority of things like that, it's homegrown. The point still
remains: you are conflating the activities of some with the entirety of left-leaning
people and groups. It's hard to believe that Ted Turner is telling people to go
disrupt an Easter service, much less the Obama campaign. A point you keep avoiding.

> I also have a problem with denial of
> access, intimidation, harrassment, etc...being called "non-violent"
> and still supported, and financed, by MoveOn.

So what about the direct action in Florida in 2000? You know, the Brooks Brothers
Riot? Was that acceptable or not? It did have a very significant effect on the
country, you know...

> When they stop violating the rights of other Americans, and
> supporting that, then I'll get off their case. The only difference
> between them and Focus on the Family and others on the right is which
> guarantees and freedoms get violated.

Hmm, Focus on Family seems to get to visit with admin. and Congressional people
pretty regularly. Can't say the same for MoveOn and any high level Democrat leaders.

As long as I'm thinking about it, a couple of days ago, we were discussing the
ability of various groups to be heard. You said, "It's a democaracy,everyone gets to
be heard, and the anti-war folks were heard." [1] Well, what about when Gen. Petraeus
was due to go before Congress and talk about the Surge - MoveOn bought an ad in the
NYT questioning what he was going to tell us. As you remember, the House and Senate
passed resolutions condemning MoveOn for that ad. Can you offer any example of a
right-leaning organization receiving similar treatment? Bill, they are American
citizens - shouldn't they have the right to call into question the policy and actions
of the administration?

> I'm also going to stop criticising the folks on the right to level
> the playing field with you. Is there anyone on the right, writing from
> the right, etc... that you don't think is a nutcase?

Funny, I read American Spectator fairly often. Every now and then, Pat Buchanan
forgets to be a nutcase. Andrew Sullivan sometimes pulls it off (he was one of the
very few pro-war people who actually admitted his errors in the series of articles on
the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war. But people like O'Reilly, Hannity and so many
more have proven that they are nutcases or "useful idiots" in the best of
circumstances.

> You've also repeatedly lumped everyone who voted for Bush, or is
> vaguely center, or right together with the nutjobs pretty regularly.

That would be your perception, Bill. Not born out by what I write.

> The vast right wing, corporate, media monster seems to be as much a
> staple of your arguments as my problems with MoveOn and those folks.

As I've said, I can fire off examples of the media being in the bag for the GOP
and enabling rightwing talking points for days. Fox News doesn't even pretendthat
they aren't the propaganda wing of the RNC anymore. Oh yeah, a couple days ago, I
mentioned Beck and Carlson and their ability to stay employed despite **** ratings. I
forgot to mention that Phil Donahue's show was dropped even though it was the highest
rated show on MSNBC because, according to an internal NBC memo, "he would be a
"difficult public face for NBC in a time of war". So I think your argument that
right-leaning on-air people stay employed because they "move product" isn't quite as
watertight as you'd like to think.

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/a7f882490dc488d8

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> >Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
> >country as we now know it.
>
> Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: [email protected]
> (Paul G.)

Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a matter of fact) complaining
about being "taken out of context." Wouldn't you say that's what this is?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> But you should not equate the credit situation of guvmints who can create
> money by fiat to that of individuals and private firms. The inflation of
> the money supply via OMO amounts to another way to tax, and of course,
> causes market distortions and malinvestment.

Zimbabwe.

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> Snakes -- I keep pet snakes.

Howard Kveck wrote:
> Me too - just not the sort you think you do.

Snakes are cleaner than primates.

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>  Ben  called me out so,  maybe he would like to  level his charges
> against Mr. James Madison as well,  who wrote:
>
>    It ought be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity
> that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these
> States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
> barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a
> considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be
> totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the
> unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so
> great a majority of the Union.            Happy would it be for the
> unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being
> redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren!
>
> James Madison - #42, The Federalist Papers  
>
> just regards - Mike Baldwin  

What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery -
and you'll notice it took much longer and more blood
than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders did not.
Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly
South Carolina and Georgia) in the union. Many of them
knew this was a great flaw in the Constitution, although
I don't believe any of them predicted the magnitude
of the bloodshed it would take to resolve the unresolvable
dilemma of a document that enshrines democracy and
equality while effectively recognizing slavery. Having
effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became
impossible to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
on a previously unknown industrial scale.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=293
http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Slavery/constitution.html
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116852
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9B0DE1D6153EF935A35755C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>

None of this is particularly controversial as American
constitutional history. It is not America-hating to say
that the Constitution was flawed. It's pointless to sit
around arguing about whether the founders who wrote
the 3/5ths compromise were good or bad men, as if we
were deciding whether to put apples or coals in their
Christmas stockings. That does nothing. Putting one's
head in the sand and declaring that the outcome was
good, therefore the original document must have been
right all along - now that's hating freedom.

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_census_1860.htm
The slave population of the US increased from 698,000 to
3,954,000 from 1790 to 1860, despite the abolition of
the slave trade. The total population increased from 3.9 to 31.4
million in the same period (much of that in the more populous
North, I think). Somebody in this thread gave the apologetic
argument that the slaves couldn't have been freed in 1800
without a bloodbath. Yet it's not as if slaveowners then went
on sitting on their hands waiting for the slave population to
go down so they could get out and retire to Key Largo to sip
mai tais. Bloodbaths didn't enter into the 3/5th rule. It was
about slave-based economics first, and then economics and
the romance of the self-proclaimed agrarian society, and now
when people swoon about the old south and states' rights,
all they are remembering is the romance. Not the blood.

Ben

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<969b9262-c319-480b-88c8-843a4e295348@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
> While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery -
> and you'll notice it took much longer and more blood
> than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders did not.
> Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
> moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly
> South Carolina and Georgia) in the union. Many of them
> knew this was a great flaw in the Constitution, although
> I don't believe any of them predicted the magnitude
> of the bloodshed it would take to resolve the unresolvable
> dilemma of a document that enshrines democracy and
> equality while effectively recognizing slavery. Having
> effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became
> impossible to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
> on a previously unknown industrial scale.

I think you overestimate the importance moral attitudes
toward slavery had in the hostilities circa 1861-1865.
Industrialization had gotten going in the north and the
north was kicking southern ass. Overt slavery was losing
big time to wage slavery and interchangeable parts.
The south missed the economic boat and were looking to
cut a better deal. They lost hugely.

Shermans's march through Georgia? That was a practice
run. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, and that is
where Sherman went after he perfected his scorched
earth holocaust.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Howard ask

>Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a
>matter of fact) complaining about being "taken out of context."
>Wouldn't you say that's what this is?

No Howard, what "this" _is_actually is hypocrisy, on _your_ part.
Maybe I missed where you were defending me when Paul G.'s levelled his
racist charge against me.
You just stepped in it good Howard. The choice is yours, keeping
getting in deeper or back-out now. Let's see if you can do the right
thing.

just regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[Michael Baldwin]

Ben wrote;

>What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
>While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery
>- and you'll notice it took much longer and more
>blood than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders
>did not. Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
>moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly South Carolina
>and Georgia) in the union. Many of them knew this
>was a great flaw in the Constitution, although I don't
>believe any of them predicted the magnitude of the bloodshed
>it would take to resolve the unresolvable dilemma of a
>document that enshrines democracy and equality while effectively
recognizing slavery.
>Having effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became
impossible
>to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
>on a previously unknown industrial scale.
Hello Ben - I _sincerely_ appreciate your thoughtful, factual, accurate
rebuttal.
I think we'd both discover more common ground on this subject in a
more conducive venue then "abusenet".
You're exactly right. The Framers & Founders _had_ to strike great
compromise in order to even form the nation which would be known as the
"united states". And while it's true the then huge territorial state of
Georgia was very willing to break away, so to was New York.
I'm of close acquaintance with a gentleman who teaches Civil War
History at a major university. Your points mirror his to great degree.
Especially the point over the amount of "miscalculated bloodshed".
Well I do again wish to say I sincerely appreciate the effort you've
put forth in having a real discussion.
In closing I've included a portion of Lincoln's Springfield
addresses that really summarizes my POV.

Best Regards! - Mike Baldwin


They [the Declarations signers] meant simply to declare the right,
[equality] so enforcement of it may follow as fast as circumstances
should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society,
which would be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked
to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly obtained,
constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening
its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all
people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created
equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great
Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for
future use. Its authors meant it to be as,- thank God -, it is now
proving itself - a stumbling block to all those who in after times might
seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
Abraham Lincoln

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Howard ask
>
>> Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a
>> matter of fact) complaining about being "taken out of context."
>> Wouldn't you say that's what this is?
>
> No Howard, what "this" _is_actually is hypocrisy, on _your_ part.

You've assigned some meaning to Paul G's statement, but coyly left that
meaning implied. The Queen of Drama assumes you mean that Paul G hates
America. Being a drama queen, she's probably made too much of it.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
>> country as we now know it.
>
> Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: [email protected]
> (Paul G.)
>
> Well I don't think that you could be more significant than that. What do
> you want to bet that changes of that nature would be far and away from
> what Paul G. would actually want? However, silly people often cut their
> own throats trying to ******** all of the authority figures around them.
>

This is RBR. No authority figures here, except for your pretend ones.

 

[Fred Fredburger]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:51 am, Fred Fredburger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>>>> The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
>>>>> kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
>>>> Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.
>>> "Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
>>> Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
>>> who write the regulations."
>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.html
>>> http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
>>> In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
>>> retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
>>> opposition party. "Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
>>> basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
>>> political dominance came from democrats,
>> I was following perfectly up to this point. Political dominance in the
>> US does not come from the Democratic party. From 1932 to 1980, I'd buy
>> that. But today or even in 1996, not so obviously.
>>
>>> who are essentially
>>> socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
>>> statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
>>> exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.
>> I believe in the existence of such people. I believe that they would
>> have issues with both the Democratic and Republican parties.
>>
>>> A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
>>> common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
>>> relationship, but one born of political reality. It so happens that
>>> "Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
>>> political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
>>> one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
>>> unfortunately, binary in nature. So as it goes, the democrat party is
>>> less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
>>> detailed differences within.
>> I almost agree, but not quite. While I agree with your assessment of the
>> Democrats, I don't see any significant group in the Republican party
>> that favors liberty either. There are multiple groups in the Republican
>> party that would deny individual liberties in various ways. The statists
>> that would deny you the right to own guns and who favor social welfare
>> programs tend to be Democrats, all the other statists become Republicans.
>>
>> Yeah, some libertarians vote Republican. But that's only because they
>> get tired of voting for candidates who lose.
>>
>>> Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
>>> primary selection procedure: it is the height of irony that
>>> "democrats" have no confidence in democracy.
>> Yep. It was strange when Kennedy made this type of noise in 1980, but
>> not completely indefensible. He had won a lot of the late primaries and
>> was more popular than Carter when the convention came around. So the
>> (lame) argument was that the primary results did not reflect (current)
>> public opinion. This time there's been no demonstrable shift in public
>> opinion and Clinton donors are apparently working to promote
>> overthrowing the primary results. When you threaten to take a
>> politician's money away, that's unAmerican!
>
> I think you might be asking for too fine of distinctions in a small
> post. Statists certainly exist in both _parties_, and I don't
> necessarily disagree with you on trends in the last 10-15 years or
> so. I am also not saying that any particular Republican was not a
> statist or was in opposition to advancing statism. My point was that
> more-or-less over the last 80y democrat politicians and the people who
> vote democrat are/were more monolithic in their statist impulses, but
> you could not be so sure for someone who decided to vote for a
> republican, as due to the political structure it was the only place
> for opposition to coalesce. "They may be, or they may not be." I am
> only suggesting the yardstick of uncertainty has been higher for the
> aggregate of persons who voted for a Republican.
>
> If the neo-cons are reaching parity with democrats, it might all be
> awash. A vote for either would be about the same, meaning even the
> opposition voter had no way to distinguish the margin, as vague as
> that notion can be. I'm not quite saying "it would not matter who
> gained power in that case," but that the voter would simply have
> grossly insufficient clues as to which political party/politician
> would turn out to be least bad -- which would harm him/her the least.
> The only hope then would be institutional strength (really balance).
>
> Also, I am not saying that _within_ those who have voted Republican in
> the past, the percentage of those who were LIBERALs made up a large
> fraction. I do think the percentage is probably small, but large
> enough to have swayed some prezidential and congressional elections.
> I am saying that when those people went and voted Republican, it was
> because that was the only place for them to go as _opposition_ to the
> dominant statist party (democrat) because of the nature of the
> political structure.
>
> To be a LIBERAL is to be in a small minority.
>

A large part of the difference in what we've said has to do with the
time period we're talking about. Many Republicans in the 60's and 70's
were more socialist than Democrats generally now. The rhetoric has
shifted "right", if not the actions.

I appreciate your precise use of the word "liberal". It seems you might
classify yourself both liberal and fiscal conservative. Which, while
reasonable, might cause someone's head to explode.