I think handouts to big business are a fairly right-wing thing to do.

I think both sides have a tendency to tag anything they don't like as typical of the other side. Any action can be painted in multiple ways, as CastleBravo and I just did with the GM issue.

Allowing bankruptcy wouild have been the thing to do. Government ownership if a leftist idea. You changed the tag I didn't. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

Hand outs are NEVER right wing, regardless of who receives them.

Probably correct. My point is - man has the ability to go beyond this: if only he wants that.

We are driven by natural drives and instincts, and our minds are heavily confused and our emotions make us highly irrational. But we can realise our drives and instincts and emotions and the way our minds work, we can learn about them - and by that raise ourselves above them, no longer being their blind and obedient vasalls only.

If you want to learn about others and the world - realise yourself.

There was no similar Rational section in the 2009 stimulus. The assessment was closest. You would need to read both links for a better comparison. Point being the economic stimulus started during the Bush administration and who's to say what McCain would have done.

My initial reaction would be to allow for bankruptcy in the auto industry as well, my reservations are due to how much those industries contribute to military production in desperate times.

The banking fallout has plenty of blame to throw around, including every citizen who runs up credit debt to live beyond their means, trusting to better times ahead for salvation. It's all in the name of greed and that has little to do with left or right.

Buddahaid

No it is not. Rather leaning towards the Conservative spectrum.
That's fine, don't get me wrong. Just do not pretend to be objective when you actually want to make a point.

Apart from that, for me the whole discussion boils down to a very simple principle: Respect each others' opinions. The moment when a perspective different to one's own is disrespected, or, even worse, ridiculed, is the very moment when a free society begins to falter.

I stand by what I wrote. I notice there isn't a "liberal" answer posted yet.
I also stand by the fact that right now - liberalism IS being led by the most fringe of its members.

Show me a "moderate" democrat in a leadership role. And no - the current president is not moderate, as his leadership (and obvious lack thereof at certain times) has demonstrated.

That does NOT make all "liberals" bad, communists or anything else. But the discussion can't be had when you won't label a progressive liberal (and that term should scare alot of liberal folks if you look at its historical roots) different than a moderate liberal. Just as we can't have the discussion without those who lean conservative being unwilling to call out those in their own ranks who are too fringe.

A perfect example is those who advocate violence against abortion doctors. They are insane nuts who can't even keep their own theological reasonings for their actions in contrast with what they claim to believe.

I guess it would depend on how one defines "Moderate".

What may be moderate to one may not be moderate to another.

I always see them as Bible thumping licensed conservative nuts. :D Maybe I don't look deep enough in my disdain.

Buddahaid

Bill Clinton was a moderate. I remember the Republican reaction to the 1996 election was something along the line of "Clinton won because he sounded like a Republican."

Obama's a lot more moderate than people think. He sells himself as a liberal, but he's a pragmatist at heart.

Buddahaid - there is no doubt they try to use the bible as a shield for their actions - but the mainstream conservatives know they are wrong, fringe and are nuts. The fact they can't see that their actions violate what they claim is their beliefs show that they lack some level of sanity.

Fringe conservative - absolutely. But given approval by mainstream conservatives? Not at all. I do admit there is not enough speaking out against them within the same circles - again the "silent majority. Danged shame if ya ask me.:nope:

I agree that Clinton was a moderate, but where on Earth do you get the idea that Obama is? Pretty much every single policy he has backed to this point has been out-and-out leftist.

I know you're trying to sell this concept that liberalism is somehow "pragmatism" but it is not. Liberalism is liberalism. There was nothing pragmatic about the Obama stimulus (wouldn't it have been more pragmatic to actually read it?). There was nothing pragmatic about the GM/Chrysler takeover. There's nothing pragmatic about nationalized healthcare (something I actually agree with, but in a different form). Even after the Iranian elections the White House wasn't pragmatic regarding taking a stance - they waited until they were forced to condemn the violence because the networks picked it up.

Just because you agree with an issue doesn't make it pragmatic.