[quote=cheesehead;128113](Aren't "libertarians" usually considered to be neither "conservative" nor "liberal"?)[/quote]As a popular sports talk radio host in my area famously says: "You're [I]making[/I] my point" (it's a Boston thing). :smile:

Libertarians would typically fall into the "private" rather than the "public" camp. It has nothing to do with whether one would think of them as conservative or liberal or neither one at all.

[quote=tallguy;128125]Nope... I meant what I said. The only entities I can think of that are germaine to the conversation are individuals or corporations (which includes non-profits, and so on).[/quote]
This would be communicated more effectively by saying
"corporations" instead of "other entities (i.e. corporations)"
or am I missing some subtle inference?
But using "i.e"="e.g" is becoming so frequent, that the use of
either should be kept to a minimum (regrettably).
David

[quote=davieddy;128151]This would be communicated more effectively by saying
"corporations" instead of "other entities (i.e. corporations)"
or am I missing some subtle inference?[/quote]Because.... if I had simply used the word "corporations", I think most people would equate that with "big bad ugly multinational corporations that are destroying the world".

I guess what I meant could have been conveyed better by saying "other entities (i.e. corporations, [U]for profit or otherwise[/U])"

And I thought [I]I[/I] was pedantic... :smile:

[quote=davieddy;128151]But using "i.e"="e.g" is becoming so frequent, that the use of
either should be kept to a minimum (regrettably).[/quote]Ah, but isn't that an argument to use them more frequently (and appropriately) so that the unwashed masses may learn? :razz:

[quote=tallguy;128126]Libertarians would typically fall into the "private" rather than the "public" camp.[/quote]What "'public' camp"? What "'private' camp"?

Just how are you using "private" and "public"?

BTW my link to the The Atlantic Times, in an earlier post, does indeed point to a different article now.

Use the link

[URL]http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=1169[/URL]

to get to the article from which I quoted earlier, "Waiting for a New Era" by Josef Joffe in the February 2008 issue of The Atlantic Times.

[quote=cheesehead;128212]What "'public' camp"? What "'private' camp"?

Just how are you using "private" and "public"?[/quote]See your post# 223.

[quote=tallguy;128230]See your post# 223.[/quote]If you will carefully re-read my post #223, you will notice that (a) I used "public" and "private" only in the combinations "public purpose" and "private interest", not as stand-alone adjectives, and (b) those combinations were used only to refer to periods of time (historical cycles, or election years within one of those cycles), not to people.

In a later posting I wrote "Nixon's 'public purpose' slant", referring to his administration's course of events fitting in with Schlesinger's definition of "public purpose" actions and to its time within a "public purpose" cycle, not to designate Nixon himself as "public purpose".

Then I posted a Wikipedia quote ("Public Purpose and Private Interest do not correlate directly with liberal or conservative, or the ideals of specific political parties.") to support my contention that 'public purpose' is [B]not[/B] a synonym for 'liberal', nor is 'private interest', for 'conservative'."

At first I thought you, in your responses, were merely omitting the final words of "public purpose" and "private interest", but when you write "Libertarians would typically fall into the 'private' rather than the 'public' camp", you seem not to be using "public" and "private" in the same way as Schlesinger's "public purpose" and "private interest".

So,

Are you willing to use "public purpose" and "private interest" in the same way as Schlesinger, and to refrain from using the single words "public" and "private" either as synonyms of "liberal" and "conservative" or as abbreviations of "public purpose" and "private interest", in order to avoid confusion?

Weeds. Everywhere I look I see weeds. Where did that thread about the current U.S. Presidential election go? I'll serve up a softball:

Can you think of anyone other than a Clinton, behind in delegates and behind in the popular vote, who would have the gall to suggest their opponent take the VP slot? God, I hate those two.

I can't think of anyone with that kind of gall...

I do vaguely remember a moment in 2004 when Howard Dean said during one of the debates "In my second term..." and the audience almost laughed him off the stage.

[quote=Prime95;128433]Weeds. Everywhere I look I see weeds.[/quote]:sorry: If it weren't too late, I'd replace my last posting with a noncontentious attempt to swing back to topic.

[quote]Can you think of anyone other than a Clinton, behind in delegates and behind in the popular vote,[/quote]... but whose primary victories are in states with noticeably more Electoral College votes (remember them?) than the states in which Obama has won, IIRC, so she does have some basis for her stance.

(Survey USA, at [URL]http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/[/URL] and [URL]http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/[/URL] projects, _as of last Thursday_, that Obama fares slightly better against McCain than Hillary does. But that's in flux.)

Let's not sidetrack into comparisons like those look-who-won-counties-with-the-most-land-area maps of yore. Electoral votes are the ultimate target. Delegates for the nominating convention, and popular votes, are only intermediaries. Democratic superdelegates are intended to correct a misaim coming out of the primaries.

[quote=Prime95;128433]Can you think of anyone other than a Clinton, behind in delegates and behind in the popular vote, who would have the gall to suggest their opponent take the VP slot? God, I hate those two.[/quote]As one local commentator pointed out:

"Isn't it absurd to on the one hand say 'he isn't ready to be President' and yet in the next breath say 'maybe he should be VP'? Isn't being ready to be President at a moment's notice job qualification #1 for a VP?!?"

Good point...