[lbo-talk] A liberal geek defense of Ron Paul

nathan tankus somekindofheterodox at gmail.com
Sat Dec 31 16:28:37 PST 2011

shag carpet bomb said....

"if you had a definition of what a liberal is, why bother to ask others without offering your own first? "

I did not. Nor have i expressed one. In fact, the whole point is not what i think the word means but what those who use it on this list think the word means. I was simply trying to understand what people meant. my intuition was that people use it to mean anyone on the "left" who isn't a "radical". i feel my intuition was vindicated based on some responses i got.

"as for people being mad at Obama as some sort of sign that they're not Liberals... I'd say that anyone who is disappointed in Obama is obviously a Liberal. A liberal actually takes these jokers seriously! Actually thought Obama would be different? Actually projected all those hopes and dreams on the guy? THAT's a liberal! "

I never used the word mad. i used the word "detest".

"Any book with the subtitle of Yves Smith's book is a book by a Liberal. She clearly thinks that the problem has to do with unenlightened self-interest. If *individuals* just aright all that is wrong with our current political economy by acting in the *enlightened* self-interest, all would be well with the world. Who was the philosopher who first highlighted that term - enlightened self-interest- and went on and on about it? I've forgotten. "

your deep analysis and study of her book is truly remarkable. I guess you've never heard the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover"/ -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list