The antics of symantics.

And you say MY mania runs deep! First off, what "point" went to Obama? I didn't note your example after the declaration. I assume you were not referring to his blaming private sector greed as the sole culprit in our current economic woes - we all know that's hardly the case.

Titus, Titus, Titus ... outside of the "what ended the Great Depression" debate nothing is more maddening then your purist insistence in the employment of terms and phrases. Were you right when you said that the Soviets were not pure communists? YES. That the word "conservative" means: resistant to change? YES. Fascism, socialism, liberalism, all the "isms", we could go on endlessly on how these terms are applied with no resemblance, or at least a less then pure resemblance, to their technical definition in modern political speak and debate. But my gosh man! When learned people intelligently discuss issues and employ these terms and phrases it is a given that we mean "the Soviet's version" of communism. "F. Ryan's version" of conservatism within the modern US political dynamic. That although "classic liberalism" is what defines each and every signatory to the US constitution, it currently means over burdening the tax payer and underfunding the military all while recoiling at a crucifix like a Bram Stoker creature of the night. If I didn't personally know your own level of intelligence I'd be screaming: "fast moving game chief, try and keep up."

And look, I'm not saying that classic definitions have no merit or aren't worth knowing or remembering, not at all. Knowing the proper pure definition is essential; but WE ALL KNOW what candidates, economists, policy wonks et al mean when they employ them in a less then purist form - that they are ALL qualfied by an impure notation. You seem to be requesting that each speaker rattle off a preamble of qualifiers prior to his speech. Either that or refrain from using the term. Neither is going to happen and for the very simple reason that any informed listener already knows that the qualifier exists in abstencia.

When McCain evokes the phrase: "free market economy", we should all (and do outside of you apparently) realize that it is automatically qualified with the words "America's version of ..." Of course you would have a problem with even that terms given the "Americas" refers to more then just the US! Perhaps you are concerned that the "less informed" will not realize that we have all decided to play by the rules that none of these phrases are purist level applicable, and thus these "peasants" will be under a false impression. I don't know your reasoning, but I urge you not to become one of "those" guys ... in the middle of a debate over nuclear jihad you stop to correct your opponent for ending a sentence in a preposition.

For the record, "Free Market Economy" is defined as: Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.

Now, I WILL grant you one thing in terms of that specific economic term. We have allowed for so much government incursion into the private sector, up to and including (especially including in my opinion) the vote scheduled for 8a.m. Eastern on this $700,000,000,000.00, that it would be healthy for a national leader to stand up and demand that we start using an alternative term just to demonstrate how far the US has strayed from its' pure definition. Maybe the fact that we can no longer legitimately apply that phrase would serve as a wake up call for those resisting both fiscal sanity and reigning in government growth.

Let me close with this ... if you are arguing a neophyte (in all things political and historical) and he is pissing you off with some arrogant rendition of his version of reality, by all means, nail him with the fact that he hasn't a clue what all those phrases he is employing mean (like Barak ... he, he). However, if it's you, I, Jambo, John McCain, or any other qualified panel of participants, it seems rather silly to me to insist that each of us employ a preamble of qualifiers just so that when I off the cuff refer to Breshnev (sp?) as "that commie bastard" I don't get corrected on the technical definition of communism. The "qualified participants" as I refer to them all know preconversation that the terms we intend to evoke are not purist. I mean we "get" the impure implication when using the various terms ... and have chosen to use them anyway because they are the closest widley identifiable word available to properly convey a point.

By the way ... I want you to consider one thing. If you are the only one insisting on pure definitions (like the word conservative) that for all practical purposes has been abandoned by modern speakers, perhaps you are the one no longer properly applying the word. Perhaps the definition has changed within the modern vocabulary (such as "free market economy") to the point that the pure definition is no longer the correct one. Like some archaic language that leaves this earth when the last of its people's pass on, maybe you are holding on to meanings that are for all intended purposes no longer used. And I'm not commenting on whether that is a good or bad thing, but that perhaps it is the reality.

Just a thought ...