Never use two words when one will do. My response sums it up perfectly, albeit, not in a liberal fashion. And, please. Lose the "I'm a Moderate" thing. You exposed that as a fraud long ago.
thats what i have been sayin. red is an extreme big government liberal, pure and simple. "lets give this obama plan a chance" is not a moderate position, if the plan is a massive left wing spend-a-thon. "the people elected him, so lets go ahead and let him run wild with socialism. a trillion for this? sweet. a zillion for cap and trade? bring it! a HUGE government controlled health care boondoggle? yay moderates!"
Bothers you that there are articulate moderates doesn't it? I knew you couldn't back up your witty quips with anything substantive. The Constitution doesn't say "less government" anywhere. Obama doesn't say "all government" anywhere. You made it up. Anybody that's not an anarchist is "big government" to you. Of course it is, you demonstrate your poor perception. The conservative position is "condemn it before it happens". The liberal position is "It's already a success." No, you made an unsubstantiated claim, not a case.
it is because you are a big government extremist that you think my moderate small government views are anarchist. i love government programs. i am in favor of public education, public transportation, lots of money spent on big government programs like the military and the university system. thats not anarchist. but extremists think it is. i think for example, a nice spending program would be ok if barack put the billions into bridges and highways and trains instead of bailouts and cap and trade and clunkers and entitlements and socialist health care and all the stuff wild eyed maniac socialists like.
