My guess is that any sex that involves a white male having a fantasy of any sort fulfilled is negative and oppressive to the Liberal, while any sex involving women doing as they see fit is progressive and good.

you know the lib mindset and that's for sure.

gvg:

Were'nt alot of free loving hippies considered part of the liberal community? They did'nt seem to view sex as oppressive.

That was before organized feminism merged with the liberal mainstream to the extent it has today. It was the last moment in time before that happened.

The average hippie probably wouldn't have said the problem with marriage was that it was an instrument of the patriarchy with which men oppressed women, he would have said the problem with marriage was that it repressed our natural instincts and confined "love" to a narrow sphere of life. He would probably have condemned sexism, if asked, but what he'd define as sexism would have been pretty different from what a typical liberal might say a decade or two later. I don't think very many hippies would have said, for example, that all heterosexual relationships as they exist in our culture are inherently exploitative.

(Note the deliberate use of "he": AFAICT, apart from a couple of pop singers, the hippie ethos and experience was at the time communicated to the larger culture, to the extent it was communicated at all, mostly by men.)

Like Neo-Classic Architecture is not Classic Architecture.

Movement Conservatism was an attempt to draw together a very disparate bunch of individuals who had distinctly different goals but could agree on certain principles if their specific goals could be at the minimum tolerated by the other groups.

So you had cultural conservatives who wanted to see the Constitution changed to allow religious groups to share political power and even be funded by the government. This might have seemed anathema to Constitutional Conservatives, but it did mean that they could - if they played their cards right - get to rewrite the Constitution, which didn't sound like a good idea to the Brahman Conservatives, but as long as the Socialists were in pitched battle with the Religious and Constitutional Conservatives, none of those undesirables were joining the Brahamn Country Clubs or private schools which was a barrier to the Fiscal Opportunist Conservatives who were trying to climb the Ivy Walls, but needed all of the above to participate in their investment banking marketing scheme if the FOC were going to become fantastically wealthy.

Coalitions like that (not limited to the Movement Conservatives) are always tenuous at best. Remember in the 70s when that coalition of new age spiritualism, racial diverstity, drug culture and radical politics suddenly caught on fire and exploded.

I think that what we are seeing now in Obama is more of a European style movement. Politics that are flexible, secular and practical. There is no liberal in the Obama Movement, no Conservative, no Radical, no Reactionary. I think if you are a person with a need, you will be considered, if you are a person with resources, you will help.

Not sure how long Obama's coalition will last, but let's hope at least as long as FDRs.

There is no liberal in the Obama Movement, no Conservative, no Radical, no Reactionary. I think if you are a person with a need, you will be considered, if you are a person with resources, you will help.

that is the biggest load of shit i've read in a long long time. if someone wast a voucher so that their children can escape the crappy local public schools, do you think the big eared one would consider it? hell no! the teachers unions have him by his little brown balls.

fuck the GM bond holders and buy the auto unions a big old cake with taxpayers money?

they rats in his administration are the same tired old washed up radicals from the 60's who are clintonian retreads.

do you honestly believe that bullshit?

as far as FDR goes, the only good thing about him is that he couldn't run from the police.

For those liberals unfamiliar with the posts of Mr. Chang here, it would behoove you to consider how many of his bombs strike fairly close to us at times. and he does it with humor too, which is better than self-righteousness.

why thank you slim. they love me around here.

Oh don't worry. Give the Dems enough time riding high and they'll become idiotic again too. That's what happens. For now, let's hope they can keep it together for a good long time. The country needs seriousness.

It is the very nature of successful political movements to create order and direction among disparate groups who generally adhere to some of the same principles, or cleave to similar parts of the culture. People like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater did a lot of push out the reactionaries, John Birchers, isolationists, racists and cranks out of conservative leadership, and redefine conservatism around a much more libertarian and free market approach, with some very easily identified traits such as being strong on defense, wanting less taxes and less government.

Most clearly during the Clinton years, liberalism recreated itself by purging the flaky campus radical, identity politics and collectivist-socialist nonsense that had come to define liberalism and make it irrelevant to Americans. Clinton had to promise that he was a "new kind of Democrat" and assure Americans that he represented a "third way" before he could be elected. (And he certainly did govern that way and did assure the country that the Dems had recreated themselves.) The Dems during that time have successfully created the image of being moderate and responsible stewards of government who learned the lessons of their previous overreach.

Guaranteed, the next big successful Republican will have to assure the country that he and Republicans in general are "a new kind of Republican" and that the GOP has purged itself of the reactionaries, prudes, anti-gay bigots, foreign adventurers, economic Darwinists and so forth.

However, I see the Republicans dangerously close to making the same bad decisions that the Whig party did in the middle if the 19th century, which ultimately caused their demise.

Honestly, if they run Palin for President next time around, I am sure they will no longer be considered a serious National Party and there will be a scramble between the Libertarians and the resulting Republican splinter groups for a new National Party.

Just my observation.

Honestly, if they run Palin for President next time around, I am sure they will no longer be considered a serious National Party and there will be a scramble between the Libertarians and the resulting Republican splinter groups for a new National Party.

Just my observation.

it is my observation that the demtards were saying the exact same thing after nixon and watergate but it only took four years of that idiot carter for people to be begging for some of that good old supply side trickledown.

by the time bolshevik barry is through, they'll be begging for it again too.

Somebody had themselves a big old bowl of stupid for breakfast.

Without contemplating the reason that you chose kgswiger for a nick, consider for a moment what kind of stupidity would be required to pick BetterThanU for a nick?

Now think about what kind of stupidity would be required to keep that nick.

I don't think very many hippies would have said, for example, that all heterosexual relationships as they exist in our culture are inherently exploitative.

And I doubt you'd find many who'd say that now, other than the same lunatic fringe who were saying it all along.

I am a Republican who last voted Republican nationally in 2000 (I voted Libertarian in '04). If there had been any chance in hell that I was going to vote for McCain, it evaporated the moment he nominated Palin. I mean My God. Who could better explemplify everything that has gone wrong with the GOP? She makes Bush look like a complex thinking scholar.