Fischkoepfin

What, no incanada?

Too intellectual

Just wait - we'll get a rant/tirade yet

be nice....just because you and her don't see eye to eye, it's not enough reason to allude that she's not bright.

We'll see.

Ok, Mr. Terrorist Sympathizer.

yup, someone is in dire need of it. we have a class 3 midol alert.............

You always know which buttons to push.

the far right likes to use black and white terms. you're either with us or against us. you're either conservative or liberal. you're either christian or anti-christian.

Because (for Christians) the Bible is black and white.

And I thought the bible was all white...

Yup, it's sad, I know. But the downfall started in the late seventies when the then government failed to act on the demographic forecasts, and it got even worse under the incredibly inactive government of the 1980s and 90s that managed to finally move to reform the social system the year before it was kicked out of office in 1998. Prime example of chances lost and a country moved into universal depression.

I'm sure absorbing the third world country formerly known as the GDR didn't help matters either.

No that didn't help, but the problem was that the GDR was treated as a third-world country rather than an eastern-bloc industrial power-house. Hence the infrastructure was dismantled, leaving millions of people unemployed. It's a sad, sad case...

Which infrastructure?

What there was was old, out of date, falling apart, held together by the Eastern equivalent of duct tape - whatever it was, infrastructure it was not. As to the millions unemployed - as officially there was no unemployment in the GDR, people had workplaces to go to, but no work to do, at least not productive work as it is commonly understood. Try producing something when there is no raw material, as an example.

Let's not put a golden glow over things just because they happened 15 years ago.

I'm not glorifying anything, but the GDR had an industrial infrastructure which could partially have been rescued by the West German government. For one thing, it was exporting goods to other Eastern bloc countries, primarily the USSR which paid not in money but in raw materials. After reunification, the German government had the option to honor East Germany's export contracts and to receive oil, gas, and the like in exchange. Instead, they decided to not go for raw materials and request Western cash which of course in one fell swoop terminated any export contracts and thus left the East German industry without any customers and East Germany without any industry but hordes of unhappy, unemployed people, many if not all of whom could have been kept in employment while the infrastructure was being overhauled. This would have also reduced the blow to West Germany's economy which has unarguably suffered through the short-sightedness of the West German government.

As to raw materials missing, in what way is that any different than in West Germany which has even less raw materials within its borders??

What do you mean 'without a reason'? No one is saying the sky will fall tomorrow, but the way Germany has grown accustomed to living certainally isn't going to last forever. Hartz 4, introduction of tution at universities (about 700€ a semester now), the in-progress health care reform. For whatever reason, it is changing for the worse. I am not even German, but I can see that there is something to grumble about. Still better than what you can find in the US, but the ball is still rolling further in that direction regardless. I can understand that that is disconserting.

So Germans should shut up and do what now? Everything the government has done only appears to make things worse. Witness Hartz 4 and the creation of the extremely exploitable 1€ and 400€ jobs. Private consulting firm?

Germans should remember the fact that the only reason they had it so well is because of a communal commitment to the economy after the war. Getting back to a functioning economy required sacrifices from everyone not just the unemployed or the elderly. Now, however, rather than saying ok, it's bad, let's figure this out together, responsibilities get pushed to everyone but oneself. Of course, there is something to grumble about, but the German depression (and I mean this in a psychological sense) is not the way to go. Taking the streets (as actually happened this spring for the first time in years) is already a step in the right direction, but whatever happened to people standing up for their rights.

I am German, and I've seen my fair share of the whining and things are actually not much worse than 10 years ago (actually they are slightly better). Yet, Germany whines on and wallows in self-pity, rather than remembering that it was communal rather than individual sacrifice that got them to where they used to be in the first place.

For some reason people think SUV's are exciting as opposed to a Sedan which is boring. I doubt that came from anywhere else but advertising. Much like backward baseball caps and baggy SUV's.

You're most likely right. Add to that the fact that it symbolizes closeness to the environment and nature which while definitely one of the driving forces in advertising seems to go back to the days when mountain people where driving them to get to their far-away farmsteads.

Also, the perception that big cars are safe cars are comfortable cars seems to play a role. While in reality it is much safer to drive a normal sized car, SUVs are still considered safe (despite the fact that fatality rates for SUVs are much higher, not only for the opposing party but also for those inside the SUV).

As an inhabitant of a state that keeps Kansas afloat, I would say, yes. I find it somewhat paradoxical that states whose inhabitants are opposed to federal taxation and to the big states in general have no qualms acceppting alms from those same states. And a return of 12% on every dollar is pretty heavy (although there are worse culprits).

so what is that 12 cents on the dollar spent on?

(and given that map, i'd not call kansas a state that "relies heavily" on that.

You live in Kansas, you should know. I'm in a state that gets less than a dollar back from the federal government, so they've started selling interstates here to finance the state's obligation. I'd like to know where the money goes to...

Here's something interesting...

True Conservatives Should Take A Stand

by Robert Steinback

Conservatism in America, as I once understood it, is dead.

...

Excellent article, Steve. Unfortunately it's true - the guys in power are about as

conservative as the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.

“Conservatism — disposition in politics to preserve what is established; a political

philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions,

and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; the tendency to prefer an

existing or traditional situation to change.”

“Conservative — tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions or

institutions: traditional; marked by moderation or caution … relating to traditional

norms of taste, elegance, style or manners; one who adheres to traditional methods

or views; a cautious or discreet person.”

There's nothing "conservative" about:

• indiscriminately waging war and harming people and the environment
  
• trying to kill social security
  
• irresponsible taxation and wasteful government spending which transformed a
  budget surplus into a record (and still expanding!) deficit
  

The right wing of the Democrat party seems more "conservative" to me (in the

traditional sense of the word) than the lunatics like Ann Coulter who call themselves

conservative.

Right on!

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

Interesting that you don't say why not...

Now is that because it really isn't, or because it goes against specific party politics that you adhere to?

no.no.no did you read about the ####### example

Yes I did. And I'm not about to relativise that For the same reason I don't think murder is justifiable in any circumstance.

With regards to torture and detention without trial (as it pertains to this discussion) some clearly see a justification for tactics that are not only break/bend/subvert existing laws, justifying it by continually referencing the need for those tactics not only to 9/11, but to WW2 and the Cold War. I fail to see how that isn't relativistic...

I should also add that one of the most influential political/philosophical figures in the US political system was Leo Strauss, who was himself a proponent of moral relativism.

But "conservatives" have morals and thus can't be moral relativists. What about that is not clear?

That said I think the whole US-government today is full of moral relativists who bend the laws defending on their own understanding of what the laws should be and who feel perfectly justified in applying different rules to different people at the same time. Ace13's example of justifying torture (which it is not according to our chief moral relativists who would clamor with indignation if US-troops were being detained in a similar manner) by pointing at the "enemy" in Iraq who has most likely no relationship to the people in Guantanamo is another example of moral relativism because it assumes that whatever happens to Americans in Iraq is incomparaably worse than what happens to Muslims in Gitmo. If you have a clear ethical standard then you should be willing to apply it regardless of the circumstance or the people involved because otherwise you are corrupting your moral or ethical standard.

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

nor has it been proven that homosexuality has a positive impact.

if you think legalizing drugs does not have a negative impact, please go wander around europe's major cities, with particular emphasis on the main train stations. one pariticular one that comes to my mind is the frankfurt am main hauptbahnhof. druggies all over the ground around it, people taking major detours around them to avoid the needles on the ground, the druggies themself who may stab them with their needles, and of course, the stench of piss all over the place from the druggies. of course, all of that must be a positive thing, eh?

Thanks for providing us with a premier example of a strict drug policy. Ever since Hessen (the state where Frankfurt is located) has become more tolerant and begun to offer free needles and safe places to shoot up in order to reduce the number of HIV-infections, the druggies of Frankfurt-Hauptbahnhof are gone.

wasn't strict to begin with, when i could see people shooting up drugs in daylight around there. now i wonder how long it will take the stench to leave the hauptbahnhof.

It was strict in that it outlawed drug use of any kind. Btw, the stench has been gone for years...

Yup, it's sad, I know. But the downfall started in the late seventies when the then government failed to act on the demographic forecasts, and it got even worse under the incredibly inactive government of the 1980s and 90s that managed to finally move to reform the social system the year before it was kicked out of office in 1998. Prime example of chances lost and a country moved into universal depression.

I'm sure absorbing the third world country formerly known as the GDR didn't help matters either.

No that didn't help, but the problem was that the GDR was treated as a third-world country rather than an eastern-bloc industrial power-house. Hence the infrastructure was dismantled, leaving millions of people unemployed. It's a sad, sad case...

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

nor has it been proven that homosexuality has a positive impact.

if you think legalizing drugs does not have a negative impact, please go wander around europe's major cities, with particular emphasis on the main train stations. one pariticular one that comes to my mind is the frankfurt am main hauptbahnhof. druggies all over the ground around it, people taking major detours around them to avoid the needles on the ground, the druggies themself who may stab them with their needles, and of course, the stench of piss all over the place from the druggies. of course, all of that must be a positive thing, eh?

Thanks for providing us with a premier example of a strict drug policy. Ever since Hessen (the state where Frankfurt is located) has become more tolerant and begun to offer free needles and safe places to shoot up in order to reduce the number of HIV-infections, the druggies of Frankfurt-Hauptbahnhof are gone.

In the same vein of thought- this is a conservative list of the 10 most harmful books of the 19-20th century-

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=7591

Nothing really suprising if you look at the list of judges.

and not sure what it says aboutme that I some of them in myhome library and have read all or parts of most

Thanks for the link. That list is about the funniest thing I've read all day.

My personal favorite: The multiple misspellings of the name Friedrich as Freidrich. While spelling errors happen they feel somewhat out-of-place on a site professing to rely on educated judges...

Since when is homosexuality a part of the 3 R's (reading, 'riting, & 'rithmetic)? If you get to teach young impressionable kids about your pet agenda of promoting homosexuality, why not let others pitch their religious or social beliefs in the public classroom too? How about the Karma Sutra to study other cultures? The ridiculousness could stretch into infinity. This is hardly censorship. I just don't see it.

Why not let kids be kids? They have plenty of time later in their lives to learn about the big bad beautiful world at large and form their own opinions when they are old enough to comprehend. That is my objection to books like "Heather's Two Mommies" that target young children with adult agendas.

If you want to add it to your kids summer reading lineup...party on. I ain't saying you can't (nor is anyone else). That is not censorship. That is your freedom of personal choice.

America is f*cked up and unenlightened? I wonder if the Arabic and Farsi editions of "Heather's Two Mommies" is a brisk seller and a "must read" in their school libraries? Ditto for the Spanish, Romanian, Ukranian, etc. editions. Maybe they are unenlightened too?

I'm not picking on "Heather's Two Mommies" or homosexuals or the above mentioned countries...I'm just saying that there is a time and a place for certain stuff. You have to put these bannings into context and not use them as examples of a "fascist" America or to bash America. Even though I have no idea of your intentions for posting the list. Maybe you just wanted a lively discussion?

Since when did HS libraries restrict subject matter to the 3R's? You do realize youre being selective with what your regard as appropriate?....which is my point. I'm a parent also - I have 2 high schooler's, and I have no problems with them reading a book that discusses or has characters that are homosexual. I'm not afraid that some piece of fiction is going to turn my kids into gay people, regardless of what my views are about homosexuality. So again, if you want to restrict what your kids read, be the parent and you tell them. But don't interfere with my kid's education by telling the school librarian to pull any books that contain references to homosexuality. I want them to be exposed to different viewpoints and ideas. That's what a true education is all about, IMO.

As to why I posted it...this happens to be National Banned Books Week. I Read about it in the local Arizona Republic. I had no idea there was such a thing, but I thinks it's a cool idea. Books have long been regarded in societies that aren't free as 'dangerous'. While I do agree that we monitor what our children read, I'm for leaving that parenting up to the parents.

Exposing children to different ideas is actually good for kids who learn to judge people for their "otherness" early enough in life. Also, it's not like they are kept innocent throughout their education but are inculcated with all sorts of propaganda and garbage concerning their society before they make it into middle school.

Granted on Hustler, but for "Heather Has Two Mommies?" For what reason?

Because having two mommies is evil. EEE-VIL!

No, it's not; kids have grown up with several mommies throughout history or whenever all the men happened to die in wars, leaving behing women who banded together to raise their kids.

Reading books about people different from yourself is an important part of growing up and enables kids to become democratic citizens. If we keep kids from reading about people outside their communities they will lose their curiosity and fail to learn the art of adaptation.

Oh no... my attempt at sarcasm has gone horribly awry I don't actually think it's evil; not at all.

Oops, sorry. But this is a red flag issue for me. Sarcasm, what's that?? :lol:

I think these are the factors that will bring about a painful but necessary revolution in American healthcare, though I don't think the US will turn to European-style socialized medicine, since it will crumble in the face of these factors...especially as Europeans get ever fatter.

I don't think it is so much because they are getting fatter, rather, it is because they are getting older and have bred no replacements. Here, around 20% of the population is over the age of 65. That is a staggering number that only grows with each passing year. Here in Witten, it is particularly easy to see. I have never seen so many elderly outside a nursing home. The fact is, old people contribute nothing to the system (built on the short-sighted assumption that the next generation would outbreed the first), but suck it dry like a leech. It just can't go on like this.

Here watching politicians doing things like raising the retirement age to 67, it is like putting a band-aid on a stab to your femoral artery. I imagine it will be only a shell of its former self in the coming years until the population pyramid has corrected itself again.

Germany could try to even out its numbers with immigration, but of course there would have to be jobs for these immigrants to work so that they could pay taxes into the system...enough taxes to offset what they take out. It's a tall order.

Sorry to butt into your convo, but what Germany really needs to do is to stop whining. Despite all the rumors that the health and social system is about to collapse, it is interesting that insurance companies particularly in the health sector are still making profits despite the fact that they are not supposed to. As to the retirement money being gone, the reason is that previous governments spend it all on such fun things as Euro-Fighters and LeopardII-tanks and the like. Yet, noone claims responbility and politicians keep claiming its due to the fact that there are too many old people (which of course could not be planned or expected). The whole thing is a typical case of neoliberalism in action worsened by the burden of reunification (adding an extraa 17 Mio people who haven't paid a cent into a social system would throw off any country, especially since it followed a similar scheme, act today, find out about the problems later). Now 15 years later Germans are still whining but completely forget that there's actually nothing to be upset about other than the fact that politicians are announcing the immediate collapse of any social services without a reason. Sorry about the rant, but if there's one thing that makes me even angrier than the bad social and health system in the US, it's the whiny attitude of Germany and the projected problems is faces due to severe policy failures in the past.

That was educational. Yeah, Germany does seem to have gone off the rails a bit. It was a powerhouse in the 1980s, but then things starting going wrong.

Yup, it's sad, I know. But the downfall started in the late seventies when the then government failed to act on the demographic forecasts, and it got even worse under the incredibly inactive government of the 1980s and 90s that managed to finally move to reform the social system the year before it was kicked out of office in 1998. Prime example of chances lost and a country moved into universal depression.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

how can a liberal "support" social values when there is no defined value? homosexuality is allowed, drugs are legalized, and so on. is supporting everything negative to society at large a value?

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

For every dollar Kansas citizens pay in federal income tax they get $1.12 back from the federal government. Compare that to California.

and that to you is "rely heavily" eh?

As an inhabitant of a state that keeps Kansas afloat, I would say, yes. I find it somewhat paradoxical that states whose inhabitants are opposed to federal taxation and to the big states in general have no qualms acceppting alms from those same states. And a return of 12% on every dollar is pretty heavy (although there are worse culprits).

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

and just how does kansas rely heavily on federal money?

For every dollar Kansas citizens pay in federal income tax they get $1.12 back from the federal government. Compare that to California.

I think these are the factors that will bring about a painful but necessary revolution in American healthcare, though I don't think the US will turn to European-style socialized medicine, since it will crumble in the face of these factors...especially as Europeans get ever fatter.

I don't think it is so much because they are getting fatter, rather, it is because they are getting older and have bred no replacements. Here, around 20% of the population is over the age of 65. That is a staggering number that only grows with each passing year. Here in Witten, it is particularly easy to see. I have never seen so many elderly outside a nursing home. The fact is, old people contribute nothing to the system (built on the short-sighted assumption that the next generation would outbreed the first), but suck it dry like a leech. It just can't go on like this.

Here watching politicians doing things like raising the retirement age to 67, it is like putting a band-aid on a stab to your femoral artery. I imagine it will be only a shell of its former self in the coming years until the population pyramid has corrected itself again.

Germany could try to even out its numbers with immigration, but of course there would have to be jobs for these immigrants to work so that they could pay taxes into the system...enough taxes to offset what they take out. It's a tall order.

Sorry to butt into your convo, but what Germany really needs to do is to stop whining. Despite all the rumors that the health and social system is about to collapse, it is interesting that insurance companies particularly in the health sector are still making profits despite the fact that they are not supposed to. As to the retirement money being gone, the reason is that previous governments spend it all on such fun things as Euro-Fighters and LeopardII-tanks and the like. Yet, noone claims responbility and politicians keep claiming its due to the fact that there are too many old people (which of course could not be planned or expected). The whole thing is a typical case of neoliberalism in action worsened by the burden of reunification (adding an extraa 17 Mio people who haven't paid a cent into a social system would throw off any country, especially since it followed a similar scheme, act today, find out about the problems later). Now 15 years later Germans are still whining but completely forget that there's actually nothing to be upset about other than the fact that politicians are announcing the immediate collapse of any social services without a reason. Sorry about the rant, but if there's one thing that makes me even angrier than the bad social and health system in the US, it's the whiny attitude of Germany and the projected problems is faces due to severe policy failures in the past.

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

Here's some food for thought...

The economy of California is a dominant force in the economy of the United States, with California paying more to the federal system than it receives in benefits.

California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

The exports of goods made in California totaled $94 billion in 2003. Nearly $40 billion of that total was computers and electronics, followed by agriculture, non-electrical machinery, transportation, and chemicals.

Historically, California's economy has been controlled by huge corporations such as the Southern Pacific Railroad, Standard Oil of California and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

According to The World Factbook published by the CIA, if California were an independent nation, it would have had the tenth largest economy in the world.

... you ought to get step out of your cave sometime.

hey steven....if we subtracted what hollyweird and the statewide porn industry brings in, what would be the total then?

It would still be a massive economy considering that most produce consumed in the US comes from CA and the electronics sector is also huge. Charles, I know you hate CA, but as someone coming from a state that heavily relies on federal money, you should be thankful that people in California (and most other "blue" states) have no problem supporting the rest of the nation through their taxes.

conservatives in cali? is that the start of a joke?

According to my wife (who is from California), California is mostly a conservative state,

with the exception of San Francisco / Bay Area (and Hollywood )

That's exactly what I heard. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense that CA frequently has republican governors, had been a home to two republican presidents (and not a single democratic one) and so on. So, in a way it's just like the state of New York where NYC is the only place to find liberals.

Granted on Hustler, but for "Heather Has Two Mommies?" For what reason?

Because having two mommies is evil. EEE-VIL!

No, it's not; kids have grown up with several mommies throughout history or whenever all the men happened to die in wars, leaving behing women who banded together to raise their kids.

Reading books about people different from yourself is an important part of growing up and enables kids to become democratic citizens. If we keep kids from reading about people outside their communities they will lose their curiosity and fail to learn the art of adaptation.

i can think of a real simple answer for it too. the car makers just have to close every car dealership in california and boycott california.

suck on that, cali!

Ironically, the city on wheels would die. Can you imagine the outcry from Hollywood actors??

No, but I can imagine the outcry from all the conservatives inhabiting Southern California screaming even louder than the few actors who actually live in L.A.. Ever wondered who put Arnie in power in the first place if the state is sooooooo overrun by "liberal actors"??

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

So you're a Socialist? I don't mean that to be offensive (and I don't know if you would find it so), but it sounds like your objection to liberals is that they're not liberal enough (that is, that they are too far to the right on the issues, even the ones that they are more liberal than the right on). So presumably your viewpoints lie to the left of the left wing. But the fact that you're more liberal than most liberals doesn't mean you're anti-liberalism, it means you're anti-people-who-claim-to-be-liberals-but-aren't.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it seems a little silly to say "my objection to liberalisms is that liberals are pro-business and anti-environment and social programs" when what you mean "my objection to people who claim to be liberals is that they are not liberals but instead act more like conservatives by being pro-business and anti-environment and social programs."

I'm not a socialist but I don't consider socialism a bad thing but rather as another misunderstood political ideology. I definitely have socialist leanings and you're right in your assumption that I'm on the left wing of the political spectrum.

As to your claim that I'm talking about conservatives when accusing liberals of being pro-business, I disagree. Show me a single liberal who classifies him- or herself as a liberal who truly opposes big business and works for the common man. Liberals profess to be for social and environmental programs but when it comes down to it they are as concerned about common people as their presumed opponents. While you think that my concept of liberal is off-key, I think your concept of conservatism is off-key. True conservatives are neither interested in economic globalism because it endangers the nation nor are they into corporations taking over the world because that would go against their basic belief in conserving the past. Not sure if this makes much sense. But anyone subscribing to the basic economic policies laid out by Smith (laissez-faire capitalism and the like) is a liberal for me.

I oppose liberalism on principle because it is pro-business and against social programs/ communities which I consider worth supporting. I also do not like the anti-environment agenda of liberalism but that falls under pro-business I suppose. Finally, while I do agree with liberalisms basic commitment to civil lliberties, I do not agree that individual rights should be extended to corporations as they are not individuals.

Excuse me, but you have it backwards. It is the conservative perspective that is pro-business and against social programs/communities. It is the liberal perspective that supports the environment, supports human rights, and support communities and social values. It is the conservative perspective that has allowed corporations to act as individuals - everything that you are 'against' are liberal agenda items - not conservative/Republican at all. This may be a big part of many people's problems - they don't understand what the real differences in the view points are.

Kathryn, please see the previous posts. She's not backwards, she's just making a point. In a professorly sort of way.

No, I honestly mean that; I don't agree with present-day liberals in the U.S. or elsewhere on a lot of issues, because they are too pro-business in my eyes. Any policies in the past decades aimed at protecting the environment or addressing social issues have been more favorable to businesses and the rich. The problem I see with the current political debate is that it narrows the political spectrum to two alternatives that are basically the same in many ways, and that differ only on "issues."

Rather than more confusion, this brings more clarity as it highlights the different connotations of "liberal" that have already surfaced in this thread. Liberalism, outside the U.S., is often understood as economic or classical liberalism, and "neo-liberal" does not refer to any political party (see Europe where the EU is supervising the implementation of neo-liberalism in increasingly more areas thanks to almost 30 years of neoliberal politics in most member countries). In contrast, inside the US the term liberal is intrinsically tied with a non-conservative, socially oriented world-view; thus Reagan, while a paragon of neo-liberalism in the international sense and politically not that different from Clinton or Carter, stands outside this category.

It would be interesting to find out where this difference in terminology comes from...

It comes from Rush Limbaugh.

No, Rush Limbaugh is only responsible for the labeling of a group of people under that term; same goes for Ann Coulter and other pundits aiming at stigmatization of a poltically very diverse group. I think this is from the fifities or the sixties or even earlier.

To add something else to the mix to confuse matters - Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is a pejorative label for an economic and political movement based on economic liberalism which has become increasingly important in international economic policy discussions from the 1970s onwards.

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using diplomacy, economic pressure and, for some neoliberals, military might[1]. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO, World Bank and ADB. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors privatization over direct government intervention and production (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve efficiency and minimize unemployment, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights. It opposes socialism, protectionism, environmentalism, fair trade, and critics say it impedes democratic rule. Likewise, these critics argue that labor rights and social justice should have a priority in international relations and economics.[citation needed]

In its US usage, neoliberalism is associated with some of these positions such as support for free trade and welfare reform, but not with opposition to Keynesianism or environmentalism. In the American context, for example, economist Brad DeLong is a prominent defender of neoliberalism, although he is a Keynesian, supporter of income redistribution, and fierce critic of the Bush Administration. In US usage, neoliberalism ("new liberalism") is commonly associated with the Third Way, aka social-democracy under the New Public Management movement. Supporters of the US version of neoliberalism present it as a pragmatic position, focusing on "what works" and transcending debates between left and right, despite new liberalism's similitude to classical center-of-left economic policies (such as has been traditional to 20th century Canada). The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion. In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.

Rather than more confusion, this brings more clarity as it highlights the different connotations of "liberal" that have already surfaced in this thread. Liberalism, outside the U.S., is often understood as economic or classical liberalism, and "neo-liberal" does not refer to any political party (see Europe where the EU is supervising the implementation of neo-liberalism in increasingly more areas thanks to almost 30 years of neoliberal politics in most member countries). In contrast, inside the US the term liberal is intrinsically tied with a non-conservative, socially oriented world-view; thus Reagan, while a paragon of neo-liberalism in the international sense and politically not that different from Clinton or Carter, stands outside this category.

It would be interesting to find out where this difference in terminology comes from...

liberalism is about social freedoms... what's so bad about that?

That's only one aspect of it - economic liberalism tends to support free markets and the interests of big business.

Exactly.