Re: [OT] Liberals was: Personal hoody-hoo

--- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:

> As far as I understand US politics (who does? ) US

Damn sure not most USians.

> 'Liberals' are what
> we over here would call Social Democrats or even
> Socialists. Ready to
> tax the rich to give to the poor. Rather vociferous
> about helping the
> 'Third World'. 'Politically correct' in the bad
> sense of that word,
> etc.

That covers it.  Happy to spend other people's money.

> In Europe, it would be quite unusual for a memeber
> of a Communist party
> to b ecalled a 'Liberal'.

Heh.  US public usage tends to try to pin things into
bipolarity.  This is impossible as a rational
political opinion encompasses a spectrum of things
which may not fit into the two choices.  For instance,
I believe in unlimited firearm ownership for
non-felons without a record of mental disease.	I also
wouldn't be bothered by decriminalization of marijuana
or state recognition of homosexual relationships.  On
the other hand, unlike your classical libertarian, I
believe in the interstate highway system, air traffic
controllers, large and well-funded Armed Forces, and
an actively imperialistic foreign policy.  And the
income tax.

That doesn't fit into a single category I'm aware of. 
I end up voting Republican because I hate the
Democratic Party (it being the official DP line that
overseas military personnel should not have the right
to vote[1]) but I'm not happy with a lot of the loons
it throws up on a regular basis.

John 

[1]Florida in 2000, when the Democratic Party National
Committee instructed their election comission members
to challenge absentee ballots, focusing on military ones.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com