Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (85824)	8/20/2000 7:32:58 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I would bet I know more conservatives than you do, and read more conservative publications. I am making an empirical observation. In the 20th century, liberalism has been practically identified with social democracy. Those who consider themselves "classical liberals" are generally conservatives. I characterized the attempt to nationalize health care as extremist, not liberalism in every part of its program. Each element of the characterization was drawn from the preceding discussion of the particular issues. Earlier, I am discussing why I consider some positions moderate, that are clearly identified nowadays with conservatism, and contrasting them with positions that would be considered liberal. In this instance, I am dealing with common usage, which differs. There is no contradiction, they are two different exercises. Even in this account, however, Clintoncare was extremist, because it was an attempt at nationalization, and that is why it lost resoundingly. They are not buzzwords, they have legitimate analytical meaning.