This is yet another example of why Obama is not a liberal. Any leftist will tell you he's not left. He's centrist. Just because he's left of the right wingers does not make him leftist. A liberal would never propose this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/obama.energy/index.html?hpt=T1
Originally posted by quackquackThere are many ways to go about energy self-sufficiency.
Why does this make him not a liberal? Is it because liberals refuse to make allow the country to be self sufficient? or is it because any idea that might benefit a corporation has to bad?
Clearly this does not change whether he is a liberal or not
But I agree this is less about him being between liberals and conservatives (as ideologies) and perhaps more about being between the Republican and the Democratic party.
Originally posted by PalynkaMaybe he just thinks the positives outweigh the negatives.
There are many ways to go about energy self-sufficiency.
But I agree this is less about him being between liberals and conservatives (as ideologies) and perhaps more about being between the Republican and the Democratic party.
Originally posted by PalynkaIn the context of US politics, it would seem that Americans generally define "liberal" and "conservative" as "Democrat" and "Republican", respectively.
There are many ways to go about energy self-sufficiency.
But I agree this is less about him being between liberals and conservatives (as ideologies) and perhaps more about being between the Republican and the Democratic party.
In a more international perspective, I would call both Democrats and Republicans right-wing conservatives.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree that the ideologies are generally defined as: liberal (resp. conservative) ideology = Democrat (resp. Republican) ideology.
In the context of US politics, it would seem that Americans generally define "liberal" and "conservative" as "Democrat" and "Republican", respectively.
But then parties are more than their underlying ideologies.
Originally posted by Badwaterthe term that's missing there is "California".
This is yet another example of why Obama is not a liberal. Any leftist will tell you he's not left. He's centrist. Just because he's left of the right wingers does not make him leftist. A liberal would never propose this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/obama.energy/index.html?hpt=T1
Originally posted by BadwaterThis doesn't mean he's not a liberal.
This is yet another example of why Obama is not a liberal. Any leftist will tell you he's not left. He's centrist. Just because he's left of the right wingers does not make him leftist. A liberal would never propose this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/obama.energy/index.html?hpt=T1
In order to govern his country efficiently he must compromise on certain areas, but that doesn't mean he changed his political positions overnight.
Originally posted by BadwaterWith "W" inacting one of the largets entitlements in US history and spending more than any other president in US history and being referred to as a conservative the term conservative has lost its meaning. What we have today is more of the same only on a larger scale with Obama. In fact, both have yet to increase taxes significantly.
This is yet another example of why Obama is not a liberal. Any leftist will tell you he's not left. He's centrist. Just because he's left of the right wingers does not make him leftist. A liberal would never propose this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/obama.energy/index.html?hpt=T1
The new term should be statist. A statist is someone who observes the never ending problems within society and seeks to empower goverment to "solve" them all for us in never ending ways. This is a far more accurate term in modern politics today.
As far as liberals go, the traditional meaing of "liberal" is the opposite of authoritarian. For an administration that is mandating that we all buy health coverage, or else, I think to call them liberals is a misnomer. For the statist, authoritarian rule is the only way they can implement their agenda. Get used to it. 😉
A statist is someone who observes the never ending problems within society and seeks to empower goverment to "solve" them all for us in never ending ways.
But conservatives rarely offer any alternative ways of solving these problems. Which leaves a large vacuum that these statists are quick to fill.
Originally posted by MelanerpesNot true. The conservatives simply don't offer solutions that proport to solve everyones problems every time every where. If you do, you will find yourself on a fast track to unsustainability.
[b]A statist is someone who observes the never ending problems within society and seeks to empower goverment to "solve" them all for us in never ending ways.
But conservatives rarely offer any alternative ways of solving these problems. Which leaves a large vacuum that these statists are quick to fill.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeywhodey, you have to accept that sometimes you have to pour money into the problem to solve it. Surely that can't be statist.
Not true. The conservatives simply don't offer solutions that proport to solve everyones problems every time every where. If you do, you will find yourself on a fast track to unsustainability.
Originally posted by generalissimoAnyone who runs on the Democratic ticket is loudly declared "far left" by the Republicans.
This doesn't mean he's not a liberal.
In order to govern his country efficiently he must compromise on certain areas, but that doesn't mean he changed his political positions overnight.
Obama is for capital punishment, he's for 'civil unions' as opposed to gay marriage, he's against legalizing marijuana, he's for a strong military and he's very hawkish on Afghanistan.
He's left of center and that's about it. Also, on the subject of offshore drilling Obama is being consistent. During the campaign he was adamantly opposed at first, but he later softened his stance saying he's willing to include off shore drilling as part of a comprehensive energy policy (if) we also include alternative energy strategies.