"Economic conservatives"  believe in accountability and constraint in the 
collection and disbursement of public funds. "Political liberals" believe in 
social justice and progressive programs to protect the disenfrachised and the 
poor.  
 
Conservative used to mean you believed in the economic conservativism of 
accountability responsibility, not the corporate welfare of this administration.
 
"Progressive Libertarians" refers to a small group of people who are both, 
while holding faith that the only role government needs to take is protecting 
it's people, protecting the environment, and protecting it's needier citizens, 
while otherwise letting free people be free.  
 
The misnomer of Free Market capitalism promoted by the corporate state belies 
it's irresponsibility to actually let the market dictate their success. It's a 
rigged game in which they dictate the rules as long as they control both the 
intake and expenditure of public monies for corporate benefit. That's not a 
Libertarian principle, that's a corrupt neo-con agenda. If they actually paid 
the cost of their environmental destruction without government intervention in 
the form of tax-breaks, pork-barrel giveaways and legislative support, they 
would price themselves out of business.
 
Look back to the William McKinley presidency and Karl Rove's hero, Mark Hannah, 
for a true model of the Bush ideology.
 
Maher has done a great job of opening up a dialog on the issues in this 
election, even if he sometimes reflected the reality that his show was based on 
an entertainment mentality as much as a political platform.

 
For real entertainment, google the words 'economic hitman"
 
 

"Michael D. Fein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just for the record; I believe Bill Maher refers to himself as a
Libertarian.

Michael

  ___  

From: (RESH) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: [rhetoric-list] Chomsky on Peters

The problem with Maher, like some others who consider themselves on the
left, is just because they are anti-war, it doesn't make them leftists or
liberals. I often hear folks like that say they are economic conservatives
but politcial liberals and I must admit I really don't know what that
means exactly. A leftist is not only anti-war because he/she knows wars
are fought for economic gain, but also anti-capitalist (and may also be
anti-authoritarian government, no matter what it is: if socialist or
capitalist) because he/she knows that all authoritarian economic/political
systems are terribly flawed when they favor a _few_ over the many.

Maher says he is a capitalist. I really don't think you can have it both
ways, which is why I disagree so vehemently with libertarians (not the
socialist syndicalist types). Capitalism is the maximization of profits
by reducing costs (mostly labor) and then the expansion and consolidation
of markets. It entails outsourcing when labor costs are such that greater
profits can be obtained by moving the jobs overseas. Clinton was a
capitalist par exellence for eliminating welfare - even when there were
not jobs enough (or paying enough) to provide for the welbeing of those
being kicked off welfare.

Chomsky is philosophically a socialist-anarchist (and so am I) because he
realizes the flaws in bureaucratic socialism and in capitalist
exploitation. And he adopts a socialist world view that each is entitled
to his/her needs, and each is required to contribute per her/his
ability to do so.

Chomsky condemns Israeli occupation - and so do I; it is apartheid to
separate Palestinians into "bantustan-like" conclaves, which has been
done. The wall also insures that the separation remains. It does save
lives but it makes permanent the separation and disregards the needs and
nationalism of Palestinians. (Yes, nationalism sucks - all of it) And yes,
there is an insurgency, more appropriately called a resistance, like the
resistence in Iraq and it is justified because Israelis are occupying
Palestinian territory. There is no justification for occupation.

But that is not why I wanted to write something. I wanted to say on a
completely unrelated point that I agree with Belzser that Anne Coulter is
a facist bolemic.

Hank


On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, donnella whitacre wrote:

>
> it was some one he would have liked, instead he didn't. the week
> before richard beltzer did throw a fit and threaten to walk off stage
> over Anne Coulter. so context? he called her a facist party doll. and
> had nothing but contemptious things to say about her.  i just find
> republican gays a bit unusual. 20% of them voted for bush? along with
> almost all orthodox jews? strange bed fellows if you ask me.
> honestly , i care not either way. i only know for myself, i have a
> hard enough time with that.  i don't have any heroes here.
>





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

     -----
    / o o \
===OO=====OO=============================================
(4)Portals (2)News Wikis (2)Conferences - No BuSHIT!
Start here: http://pnews.org/ (On Internet since 1982)
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (West Coast News Wiki)
http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (East Coast News Wiki)
=========================================================
 FIGHT THE RIGHT!
==================
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rhetoric-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to