This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"
Liberal POV: Olberman told the truth. (I LOLd)
Conservative POV: Olberman was a hate mongering hypocrite. (True, but then, so is Rush)
/thread
I will add this. Ive been familiar with Olberman since he did sports on KTLA 5. He was a bitter, ascerbic whiner then, and he was a nobody. He didnt seem to change much.
Then I am a statist, as I believe that environment oversight is necessary. It's just too tempting (and easy) to externalize production costs. Tragedy of the commons and all that."Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
I would point out that in my model it is a legitimate role of government to protect property rights. For example, if a river runs through my property and I dump hazardous waste into the river then I have violated the property rights of people down stream.
I see state ownership of most natural resources as leading to the tragedy of the commons.
While I think you fall closer to the statist side of the spectrum than I do (the vast majority of people do); I think you are less statist that most Democrats or Republicans.
|
Then I am a statist, as I believe that environment oversight is necessary. It's just too tempting (and easy) to externalize production costs. Tragedy of the commons and all that."Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
I'm a mild statist. In some ways. I have no problem with a safety net for people that find themselves in dire straits, and I have no problem with an umbrella to monitor companies to cut down on shenanigans, the difference is, mine are smaller and more focused.
Hurr durr.
Really? It looks like he said that to me.You say that B is factually wrong. pres man never said the program is not necessary because because private charity never lets anyone slip through the cracks.
How so?
Saying people give generously to those in need by no means equals private charity is perfect.
Let me see if I can use another example. If I say Social Security Disability has tremendous systemic failures. That is not the same as saying that it has never caused anything but harm, and it must be banned today with nothing to replace it. If someone argued that I said the latter when I said said the former and then they argued against the latter that would be an obvious straw man argument would it not?
Does that help, or is my example less clear?
I would point out that in my model it is a legitimate role of government to protect property rights. For example, if a river runs through my property and I dump hazardous waste into the river then I have violated the property rights of people down stream.
I see state ownership of most natural resources as leading to the tragedy of the commons.
While I think you fall closer to the statist side of the spectrum than I do (the vast majority of people do); I think you are less statist that most Democrats or Republicans.
How does your model account, for say, air pollution? No one owns the atmosphere, and it's often not possible to identify the parties responsible for the pollution. I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I really want to know what you think.
For my part, I obviously believe that we have a collective responsibility to protect common resources even when they aren't (or can't) be individually owned.
|
|
MSNBC blows CNN away in the ratings. CNN is the irrelevant station of the Big Three on cable.Fox News beats the combined viewership of CNN and MSNBC in most evening time slots, almost every day. CNN and MSNBC are both irrelevant, because liberals largely don't watch news on TV. It is for this reason that the whole Sarah Palin "lamestream media" argument (also articulated as the conservative "woe is me, all the media is left-biased" argument) fails. If nobody is listening, who cares what they say?
And NBC, ABC and CBS are most definitely liberal news organizations, so...Not sure what evidence you're basing that on, sounds like an opinion to me. My guess is, as I pointed out earlier, you're letting Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly dictate what classifies a station as liberal. If they're not talking ad nauseam about the same exact things that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly are talking about ad nauseam, it doesn't mean they're liberal. They could be centrist. Heck, they could be middle-right and just not matching Fox's level of paranoia for the day.
As someone who espouses liberal ideologies, I find NBC, ABC, and CBS to be pretty much dead-center. Probably because if they're too liberal, they'll drive viewership off their actual programming, which they can't afford to do. Sure, they'd probably like to be more liberal; in my book, though, that desire does not make them liberal in and of itself.
Before we go any further, we need to set some parameters here.
1) I am not a republican.
2) I am not a fan of Fox news
3) I am fully capable of observing the world around me and come to my own conclusions without being influenced by 1) and 2), as both are irrelevant to me.
Ok. If you have ever bothered to watch Katie Couric, Brian Williams or Diane Sawyer, and seen the difference between how they interview a Democrat and a Republican, or watched Matt Lauer ever, you'd know they show Democrats in a positive light whenever possible, and skewer Republicans whenever possible. They all spin the news the same way Olbermann did (to the Left), they're just not screaming it at the top of their lungs like he did. I guess that's what passes as "moderate" in liberal land.
Seriously, I can't stand either party. I just pick on the left since y'all apparently think your s%#@ doesn't stink.
And seriously, the "you get your info from Fox" line gets old. Any time someone has an opinion or observation that doesn't dovetail with the left, that canard is trotted out. It's pathetic and dismissive.
This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"
Get this, in the UK we have a coalition government of conservatives and liberals.
Really? It looks like he said that to me.You say that B is factually wrong. pres man never said the program is not necessary because because private charity never lets anyone slip through the cracks.
How so?
Saying people give generously to those in need by no means equals private charity is perfect.
Let me see if I can use another example. If I say Social Security Disability has tremendous systemic failures. That is not the same as saying that it has never caused anything but harm, and it must be banned today with nothing to replace it. If someone argued that I said the latter when I said said the former and then they argued against the latter that would be an obvious straw man argument would it not?
Does that help, or is my example less clear?
Less clear, I think.
In any case, it's not the "people give generously" that I take to be saying private charity is perfect, but that its existence means there's no need for any other construct to cover the same need.
And seriously, the "you get your info from Fox" line gets old. Any time someone has an opinion or observation that doesn't dovetail with the left, that canard is trotted out. It's pathetic and dismissive.
Or maybe they [the Tea Party] are not saying what you think they are saying. Maybe you are getting a skewed view from the [liberal] news sources you frequent.
Can I get a refund now?
The really interesting question is, if Fox has proven that conservative "News" pays the big bucks, why haven't other stations taken that approach? Surely, the companies running these are ... well ... companies. That inherently means they are greedy money-grubbers that only care about getting as much dough as they can. So why haven't they tried to pull some of that "triple-share" away from Fox?
|
|
This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"
No joke.
Obama made the mistake of thinking he won because everyone believed in his "vision". Nope, everyone was just pissed at the Republicans for inflicting Bush on the country. 2010 was the public letting Obama know they didn't give him a mandate.
I suspect he's going to have a "Clinton Moment" tomorrow. He'll co-opt a bunch of the right's less distasteful (to Obama), obviously popular with the masses platforms and make them his, like Billy did after the 94 elections. If he can pull it off, he might get another four years. If not, one an done.
I watched MSNBC once when I was stuck in a hotel. I found myself laughing...so I turned it off. Because there was no analysis...just a vindictive glee. I was taking pleasure in picking people apart -- and giving into the worst in myself.
Let's not fool ourselves. Maddow, Limbaugh and their ilk are paid to make hatred socially acceptable. They employ fear (among other things) in order to do this.
I am honestly interested in why the right seems so much more successful at making money doing it than the left.
I suspect he's going to have a "Clinton Moment" tomorrow. He'll co-opt a bunch of the right's less distasteful (to Obama), obviously popular with the masses platforms and make them his, like Billy did after the 94 elections.
I hope you're correct -- I'd very much like to see him do that. But I tend to think that out of any of Slick Willy's tricks, Obama is most likely to get caught with a cigar.
This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"No joke.
Obama made the mistake of thinking he won because everyone believed in his "vision". Nope, everyone was just pissed at the Republicans for inflicting Bush on the country. 2010 was the public letting Obama know they didn't give him a mandate.
I suspect he's going to have a "Clinton Moment" tomorrow. He'll co-opt a bunch of the right's less distasteful (to Obama), obviously popular with the masses platforms and make them his, like Billy did after the 94 elections.
Agree with all this...
If he can pull it off, he might get another four years. If not, one an done.
...but you lost me here. I believe that whether Obama gets a 2nd term depends on one thing: The state of the economy in Nov 2012. Right now I think he's got a fair shot.
|
|
And seriously, the "you get your info from Fox" line gets old. Any time someone has an opinion or observation that doesn't dovetail with the left, that canard is trotted out. It's pathetic and dismissive.Or maybe they [the Tea Party] are not saying what you think they are saying. Maybe you are getting a skewed view from the [liberal] news sources you frequent.Can I get a refund now?
Did you buy stock in Fox or MSNBC?
"Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
I understand that it is descriptive, but it's also odd.
You can get away with that kind of thing on the internet or maybe a classroom, but you say that in the real world and you reveal that you are walking around dividing up people into "statists" and "non-statists" and carrying a rather intense ideology in your head.
I am obviously far more inclined to see things in a state versus individual spectrum than other spectrums. I have no difficulty explaining this in person. In fact I find it much easier to do in person than with the written word. While my fellow Repubicans are sometimes offended when I point out that things like the war on drugs and the patriot act fall on the statist side of the spectrum, I generally have good luck framing debate in person at local and county party conventions.
I am certainly guilty of being an intense ideologue.
|
|
This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"No joke.
Obama made the mistake of thinking he won because everyone believed in his "vision". Nope, everyone was just pissed at the Republicans for inflicting Bush on the country. 2010 was the public letting Obama know they didn't give him a mandate.
I suspect he's going to have a "Clinton Moment" tomorrow. He'll co-opt a bunch of the right's less distasteful (to Obama), obviously popular with the masses platforms and make them his, like Billy did after the 94 elections.
Agree with all this...
...but you lost me here. Whether Obama gets a 2nd term depends on one thing: The state of the economy. Right now I think he's got a fair shot.
If he can pull it off, he might get another four years. If not, one an done.
The economy is going to depend on how well he can check his ego and deal with a hostile house. The repubs don't have to do anything and just let the economy tank some more. Public opinion already pinned it on the Dems in the last election, and with them still holding the Senate, the repubs can just keep passing stupid bills to get shot down and blame the senate and Obama if nothing improves.
The economy is going to depend on how well he can check his ego and deal with a hostile house. The repubs don't have to do anything and just let the economy tank some more. Public opinion already pinned it on the Dems in the last election, and with them still holding the Senate, the repubs can just keep passing stupid bills to get shot down and blame the senate and Obama if nothing improves.
You think so? God I hope not. You would think the Repubs would share the blame, but they seem to have a 10x better PR wing than the Dems...
Edit: Or maybe they were just on the wrong side of it in 2010; I don't know. I do know that the U.S. economy doesn't turn on a dime.
I would point out that in my model it is a legitimate role of government to protect property rights. For example, if a river runs through my property and I dump hazardous waste into the river then I have violated the property rights of people down stream.
I see state ownership of most natural resources as leading to the tragedy of the commons.
While I think you fall closer to the statist side of the spectrum than I do (the vast majority of people do); I think you are less statist that most Democrats or Republicans.
How does your model account, for say, air pollution? No one owns the atmosphere, and it's often not possible to identify the parties responsible for the pollution. I'm not trying to be argumentative -- I really want to know what you think.
For my part, I obviously believe that we have a collective responsibility to protect common resources even when they aren't (or can't) be individually owned.
My model requires federal regulation of things like interstate water ways, aquifers, and air. I think these are valid constitutional federal responsibilities.
Leftist radio and news is like watching the same episode of Laverne and Shirley every day, except with less Lenny, Squiggy and Carmine.
HELLO.....we're here about the radio show.
|
|
I watched MSNBC once when I was stuck in a hotel. I found myself laughing...so I turned it off. Because there was no analysis...just a vindictive glee. I was taking pleasure in picking people apart -- and giving into the worst in myself.
Let's not fool ourselves. Maddow, Limbaugh and their ilk are paid to make hatred socially acceptable. They employ fear (among other things) in order to do this.
I am honestly interested in why the right seems so much more successful at making money doing it than the left.
Here's the secret. When Beck is being a lying ass, he does it in a calm, reasonable voice. He surrounds himself with the trappings of patriotism. He quietly tells his listeners the other side thinks their stupid but he knows they're not. He warns them, in a very rational tone, that "they" are conspiring to take their freedoms. He's f%&$ing Fred Rodgers of right propaganda.
O'Reilly? He's your funny but kind of assholish drunk uncle on the couch at Thanksgiving. Yeah, he's a bit boisterous, but he always get's a laugh. Uncle Bill wouldn't hurt a fly, he's just like that. And, he actually let's the other side have a voice on his show. He shoots them down, but it's in a funny, wink wink, nudge nudge sort of way. And he'll throw in the occasional red herring where he appears to agree with the other side once in a while, cause uncle bill is "fair 'n balanced" dontcha know?
Olbermann, on the other hand, yells that people are stupid in a strident voice. He rails in a snarky tone about the Fascists. He, as a person is a prima donna and a complete a!$~~%@ (this is from his co-workers at ESPN). The left has an image problem because people don't want to hear they're stupid for disagreeing with "x". they want to hear they're smart for watching.
That help?
My model requires federal regulation of things like interstate water ways, aquifers, and air. I think these are valid constitutional federal responsibilities.
I believe we agree.
On a semi-related not, I find polarization utterly frustrating. Many points of view that appear diametrically opposed are really extremes ends of the same scale, with most people falling someplace in the middle. It's when we feel compelled to pick one side the other ("you're either with us, or against us.") that we're headed for trouble...
Really? It looks like he said that to me.You say that B is factually wrong. pres man never said the program is not necessary because because private charity never lets anyone slip through the cracks.
How so?
Saying people give generously to those in need by no means equals private charity is perfect.
Let me see if I can use another example. If I say Social Security Disability has tremendous systemic failures. That is not the same as saying that it has never caused anything but harm, and it must be banned today with nothing to replace it. If someone argued that I said the latter when I said said the former and then they argued against the latter that would be an obvious straw man argument would it not?
Does that help, or is my example less clear?
Less clear, I think.
In any case, it's not the "people give generously" that I take to be saying private charity is perfect, but that its existence means there's no need for any other construct to cover the same need.
I'm not sure how to explain it better. Maybe a better writer than me would have more success. I'm not a very good writer. I think I could articulate this better verbally, but I seem to struggle in this format.
Seriously, I can't stand either party. I just pick on the left since y'all apparently think your s&** doesn't stink.
This isnt a Liberal trait. Its a political trait. Politics is about half truths presented in a format to steer your perception down a desired road.
And seriously, the "you get your info from Fox" line gets old. Any time someone has an opinion or observation that doesn't dovetail with the left, that canard is trotted out. It's pathetic and dismissive.
No more then "you get your info from <insert liberal media source here>"
Funny thing, people always preface their post with qualifiers like you did. You do realize that the Lefties dont believe you. It didnt add credence to your post because you typed that.
Here's the secret. When Beck is being a lying ass, he does it in a calm, reasonable voice. He surrounds himself with the trappings of patriotism. He quietly tells his listeners the other side thinks their stupid but he knows they're not. He warns them, in a very rational tone, that "they" are conspiring to take their freedoms. He's f&~%ing Fred Rodgers of right propaganda.
O'Reilly? He's your funny but kind of assholish drunk uncle on the couch at Thanksgiving. Yeah, he's a bit boisterous, but he always get's a laugh. Uncle Bill wouldn't hurt a fly, he's just like that. And, he actually let's the other side have a voice on his show. He shoots them down, but it's in a funny, wink wink, nudge nudge sort of way. And he'll throw in the occasional red herring where he appears to agree with the other side once in a while, cause uncle bill is "fair 'n balanced" dontcha know?
Olbermann, on the other hand, yells that people are stupid in a strident voice. He rails in a snarky tone about the Fascists. He, as a person is a prima donna and a complete a@%!!~* (this is from his co-workers at ESPN). The left has an image problem because people don't want to hear they're stupid for disagreeing with "x". they want to hear they're smart for watching.
That help?
Not exactly, because I've never watched Olbermann or O'Reilly, and the one sample I've seen of Beck was specifically picked to show him off his rocker. I found him suitably annoying. Maddow came off as a self-righteous b*tch.
They're all pedaling smug superiority and anger, imho. Frankly, sometimes I wish I had the guts (and cynicism) to do it myself, but I don't.
Ok, so I have the cynicism. :P
This whole thread becomes a million times more hilarious when you realize that America as a whole is so laughably right swinging that our "radical liberalism" is what most other countries call "a bit to the right, but overall close to the center"No joke.
Obama made the mistake of thinking he won because everyone believed in his "vision". Nope, everyone was just pissed at the Republicans for inflicting Bush on the country. 2010 was the public letting Obama know they didn't give him a mandate.
I suspect he's going to have a "Clinton Moment" tomorrow. He'll co-opt a bunch of the right's less distasteful (to Obama), obviously popular with the masses platforms and make them his, like Billy did after the 94 elections.
Agree with all this...
...but you lost me here. I believe that whether Obama gets a 2nd term depends on one thing: The state of the economy in Nov 2012. Right now I think he's got a fair shot.
If he can pull it off, he might get another four years. If not, one an done.
I think it also depends significantly on the GOP candidate. We have a gift for picking dreadful candidates like Dole. Ugh.
Oh, and Bugley, can you guess what my New Years resolution was?
Hmmm..stay out of the political threads? :)
I think it also depends significantly on the GOP candidate. We have a gift for picking dreadful candidates like Dole. Ugh.
*cough*
Palin*cough*
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
They're all pedaling smug superiority and anger, imho.
QFT
I think it also depends significantly on the GOP candidate. We have a gift for picking dreadful candidates like Dole. Ugh.
Did you see the stuff Dole did the years after losing and retiring. I saw him on some Daily Show election coverage, and he was freaken funny as hell. I think if he would have let a little more of that in, he would have had a better chance (still against slick Willy, would anyone have had a real chance?).
|
|
Seriously, I can't stand either party. I just pick on the left since y'all apparently think your s&** doesn't stink.This isnt a Liberal trait. Its a political trait. Politics is about half truths presented in a format to steer your perception down a desired road.
And seriously, the "you get your info from Fox" line gets old. Any time someone has an opinion or observation that doesn't dovetail with the left, that canard is trotted out. It's pathetic and dismissive.
No more then "you get your info from <insert liberal media source here>"
Funny thing, people always preface their post with qualifiers like you did. You do realize that the Lefties dont believe you. It didnt add credence to your post because you typed that.
You are not worth talking to. Sorry. You don't get it.
My model requires federal regulation of things like interstate water ways, aquifers, and air. I think these are valid constitutional federal responsibilities.I believe we agree.
On a semi-related not, I find polarization utterly frustrating. Many points of view that appear diametrically opposed are really extremes ends of the same scale, with most people falling someplace in the middle. It's when we feel compelled to pick one side the other ("you're either with us, or against us.") that we're headed for trouble...
In many cases the polarization is artificial and overwhelmingly dishonest. The Republicans gleefully got to use the "They are trying to take your Medicare because they want you to die!!!!" bludgeon against the Democrats for a change. I found this to be despicably intellectually dishonest. I expect political parties to opportunistic, fear mongering, bottom feeders, but this tactic is counter productive to any rational discussion of reform, self destructive in the long run, and utterly hypocritical.
On the other hand I think the individual liberty versus state argument is unavoidably polarizing in many ways. In my view virtually every expansion of state power comes at the expense of individual liberty, so it tends to become an argument of reason versus force. For example, I would reason with someone that meth is bad for them, but I would not use force to prevent them from doing harm to themselves. It is therefore very easy for me as a minarchist (and to a lesser degree tea partiers) to get entrenched into an "I want to be left alone, and you want force your will on me at gunpoint" argument or position.
I think it also depends significantly on the GOP candidate. We have a gift for picking dreadful candidates like Dole. Ugh.*cough*
Palin
*cough*Sorry, I couldn't resist.
LOL! It might be cool to have a beer with her, but resigning as governor was unforgivable to me.
Hopefully the tread doesn't turn into Palin Derangement Syndrome flame war.
but resigning as governor was unforgivable to me.
You would have preferred her to stay in office and continue draining the public coffers defending against a lot of frivolous lawsuits? Well, I guess if you don't live in that state, I can see how the minarchist might not care too much about their state budget.
You would have preferred her to stay in office and continue draining the public coffers defending against a lot of frivolous lawsuits? Well, I guess if you don't live in that state, I can see how the minarchist might not care too much about their state budget.
LOL
Yes, her leaving office had nothing at all to do with personal gain. It was all about Alaska.
...come to think of it, maybe she really did have the best interests of Alaska at heart. Muahahaha.
You would have preferred her to stay in office and continue draining the public coffers defending against a lot of frivolous lawsuits? Well, I guess if you don't live in that state, I can see how the minarchist might not care too much about their state budget.LOL
Yes, her leaving office had nothing at all to do with personal gain. It was all about Alaska.
...come to think of it, maybe she really did have the best interests of Alaskans at heart. Muahahaha.
What was that again ... oh yeah, false dilemma blah blah blah ;D
What was that again ... oh yeah, false dilemma blah blah blah ;D
Hey, I'm prepared to be corrected. It seems fishy that she left to save the state money. YMMV.
I think she's hot, though. :)
I'm going to have to agree with pres here. I don't want her anywhere near the White House, but they made it impossible for the woman to do her job, and it was costing the state millions to fight all of the lawsuits (all of which were found to be completely without merit).
I honestly don't know that much about it, so I should probably STFU.
|
|
What was that again ... oh yeah, false dilemma blah blah blah ;DHey, I'm prepared to be corrected. I just don't buy the argument she left to save the state money. YMMV.
I think she's hot, though. :)
Bugley, they were filing a lawsuit almost every day. For a few months. She was in court so much she wasn't taking care of state business. It WAS costing the state millions of dollars.
Look, in politics, it's a lot better to come from someplace to go to someplace, so you have some list of accomplishments to point to. She knows that, and the people filing the suits knew that. She pissed of the opposition, she pissed off a sitting senator (beat her corrupt ass dad for the job - he's a repub, btw) and pissed off the press, so they just came gunning for her.
They forced her into the wild, instead of being tucked away in safe, out of the way Alaska. So, she's been running around and being herself, and she's polarized the country. There is little middle ground, it's all love or hate. Which is perfect for the Dems. You need that middle ground to win anything, and she doesn't have that any more.
CAW MOTHERF$&@ING CAW
|
|
Oh, good I have a side! Go team!
You can make a list of whatever you want, but it remains the case that so-called liberals and other non-conservatives don't tune in to cable-news and talk radio to be scared all day. It's unfortunate that philosophical conservatives get lumped in with frightened reactionaries that need constant info-fixes, but that's what happens when everyone decides there are only two sides.
And by the way, going around calling people "statists" is pretty wackadoo. FYI.
"Statist" isn't a pejorative, it's a descriptor. If you believe in a European/Canadian/Australian style social democracy, are a general issue socialist or communist, or a fascist (four different forms of government) you are, by definition, a statist. All it means is relying on the state to provide things beyond the basics (infrastructure, military, law enforcement). Universal health care, welfare, social security, environmental oversight, heavy private industry regulation and all the way to collective farms and state owned capital are statist policies.
It is what is is, don't be offended by it if you do fit one of the categories above.
Categories... labels... they're obfuscations designed to polarise debate by making easy labels of those who disagree with you. My opinions on one subject do not by themselves automatically declare my opinions on others. I might agree with President Obama or William F. Buckley on one issue and strongly disagree on others. I respond to what other people say, not to views that they have not expressed.
The latter by the way I respected strongly as an articulate man who was someone who would point out the weaknesses in your arguments if you did not do your homework. I disagreed mightly with W.F. Buckley's premises and positions on political issues, but I enjoyed hearing what was obviously a very intelligent man speak. He fit my definition of a worthy opponent who embetters those who strive against him, as oppose to more...
Buckley was a gem, the right lost its soul when he passed.
Oh, and "statist" is a term Chomsky uses quite often, and he's the Left version of Buckley. Every word in any language is a label, it's how we define things. "Statist" is a time worn word used to describe a certain type of political viewpoint, the high brow posturing over its use is just grandstanding.