that has become the bad word in politics.

Wow, tikigod. Don’t be too quick to condemn the basic tenets of modern liberalism. The philosophy of political and cultural liberalism underlies many of the rights and privileges we have in this country:

“Liberalism: Individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. Liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them.”

“Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life.”

It is the conservative-Republican party that has increased government, increased spending, increased our deficit, poked their noses into our private lives, our bedrooms and into women’s wombs, invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat – is this classical conservatism??!! Or modern conservatism run amok?!

Stop throwing stones in your glass house, tikigod. CONSERVATIVE has become the bad word now, thanks to Dubya.

You’re listening to too much Limbaugh and Hannity – it’s time to turn your channel.

I like to start this off by stating that I think that GW is one of the worst presidents ever. Hannity is weak, his arguments suck, Limbaugh is not that bad, but not much better. Boortz has his head up his... Listen, you are the one that has not expanded their mind beyond the realm of modern definitions. Modern Liberalism is EVIL. Modern conservatism is socialism (liberalism) light... I.E... EVIL light. I tend to put myself in the category of classical liberal...or what is referred to as a libertarian.

Definition of Classical Liberalism
My whole point in my first post was to quickly debunk the OP's idea that modern liberalism isn't bad, and our founding fathers based their ideas and constitution on "liberal" ideas. Yeah, they did, but liberal in a completely different sense.
Go read that definition of classical liberalism, the liberalism our founding fathers understood and respected. Is it in direct conflict with modern liberalism? I think the answer would be yes. I'm sick of liberals continuing to twist the truth by associating themselves with the liberals of yesteryear. Stop it.

And BTW, I'm sick of "conservatives" (GWB, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc) too. There are options outside of the cookie cutters, I for one will be voting for him.

voting Libertarian? Green Party?

I wish we did have more choices than the two party system.

If I saw a viable third party candidate emerge, that I thought could win, I would possibly throw my vote that way. However, I saw what happened when Ralph Nader threw his hat into the ring, and both Gore and Kerry lost. And the world changed for the worse, once Bush and the neocons took over.

I think about how different our country, and the world, would have been, if Bush hadn't taken over the White House. Ideological thinking I suppose.

Yes, you're right that the words and ideas of Conservative and Liberal have changed from the classical definition to a bastardized version, that continues to morph with each new administration.

I propose that we just combine the two political philosophies into one word:

either Consiberal or Libervative

Can we add these to Wikipedia?

Stop throwing stones in your glass house, tikigod. CONSERVATIVE has become the bad word now, thanks to Dubya.

No Main Stream - Conservative Got It's Bad Name From the idiots in the Republican party who started trying to appease the left and attempting to emmulate them over the last decade. Ask any Conservative and you will find that Dubya and other left-wing appeasers that call themselves Republicans don't represent us Conservatives anymore or in any way for that manner.

Dude... It's obvious listening to you disuss politics and religion, that you are one confused individual. But..... I love you anyways.

This oughta git real fun....

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

Same old song from the right-wing chorus, blame it on the left.

So, Git, Dubya suddenly morphed into a liberal... trying to emulate the left?! Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?

Dubya and his gang ARE the NEW right-wing conservatives - the neocons, remember.

Get used to the look of your NEW party, and your affilation to it.

Scary, ain't it.

Same old song from the right-wing chorus, blame it on the left.

You still don't get it... do you? I didn't blame the lefties. I'm blaming the Reagan Blasphemers that wear Conservative ideas on their sleeves but moderate to the left year after year.

Dubya and the Republicans of today, comparing themselves to the Conservative Movement and the likes of Ronald Reagan is as equally laughable as the Democrats of today comparing themselves to the likes of Harry Truman, Sam Nunn, & FDR.

Get used to the look of your NEW party, and your affiliation to it.

There is no affiliation with it. I stopped heavily contributing to them about 5 years ago when I realized they were rapidly slipping away from their conservative grass roots and embracing massive spending coupled with an agenda of expanding government. Gee... I wonder where they got that idea from?

The fact is that as the Democrats further slide to the left, in an attempt to 'try to get along', the Republicans compromise their principles and give up ground. Always moving to the left, never gaining any traction..... They're becoming just like you, and you're to stupid and stubborn to understand that you bed wetters are winning.

Sooo... you see, there is no affiliation. I wouldn't give you two d__ned cents for any of the Republican candidates and I d__ned sure won't vote for any of the nut cases your side has propped up.

Oh... BTW. I am getting used to it and accepting the fact that liberalism and the direction we are heading, is going to create a caste system that I will succeed in.

Good Day and don't forget your daily prayers and rituals to everything in this world that walks, crawls, sneaks, or snakes.... It sounds like you've got all your bases covered. Just hope the Islamofacists see it your way down the road.

There. I feel better.

Now back to kidding around.....

________
In regards to Democrats, Republicans, gangs, and other scads of coterie Kool-Aide drinkers; Remember this..... Eagles Don't Flock

Settle down, Git. Your nasty religious barbs are sounding a lot like bpr’s screechy rants. Are you going to throw some bible verses at me next?

I’m reading between the lines, and your underlying blame on this whole mess our country is in, IS with the left.

But go ahead. Enlighten us on your cockamamie theory. Please tell us how Dubya has pandered to the left??

It’s ridiculous that you insinuate that it is the fault of liberal policies that have screwed up our country. It is YOUR President that screwed it up – the man YOU and your buds voted for. No one else’s fault but the Republican’s, or should I say the neocons – the new conservative party.

Political history has shown that when the political pendulum swings too far in one direction, whether it is right or left, that it eventually swings back, and rights itself, with the urging of the people.

I truly hope this is the case in this next election, for the sake of our country, and the world.

These bloggers are old as I am if they can possibly remember when the Democrats were the tax and spend party and the Republicnas were fiscally conservative. Regan a fiscal conservative? Forget it. It’s the democrats who represent prosperity.

Reagan raised taxes several times as governor and president. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people.

He embraced Keynesian economics and massive deficit spending which saddled the nation with trillions of dollars in debt. Reagan promised a balanced budget in four years, but instead gave us the largest deficits in US history (until Bush)

The economy grew faster under President Clinton, and, according to Congressional Budget Office, the after-tax income of a typical family, adjusted for inflation, rose more than twice as much from 1992 to 2000 as it did from 1980 to 1988.

Adjusted for inflation, spending under Mr. Clinton declined every year while Reagan was unable to trim a single penny from the deficit.

Mr. Reagan increased the deficit every year, the smallest increases being in 1987 and 1988, the two years democrats controlled the Senate. Mr. Clinton cut the deficit every year.

Mr. Reagan gave us more debt than all previous president combined.

Mr. Bush gave us the largest deficits in US history.

Median family income rose $3,900 under Mr. Reagan and $7,418 under Mr. Clinton (in 2000 dollars).

Total debt as a percent of our economy grew from 25.8% to 40.9% in eight years under Mr. Reagan. This debt represents future taxes plus interest.

Under Mr. Clinton the debt dropped from 49.5% of GDP to 35.0%.

Under Mr. Bush the debt as a percent of the economy is projected to increase from 56.8% of the economy to 58% by 2007.

Corporate profits increased by $143.5 billion under Mr. Reagan and a whopping $326.6 billion under Mr. Clinton.

Under Mr. Clinton black poverty dropped 11.1% compared to 2.4% under Mr. Reagan.

You know the main difference between today’s conservative Republican’s and the old ones? Today’s neo-con Republicans would never have voted for or elected Ronald Reagan because he was not nearly conservative enough for the neo-con fringe that took over the Republican party and pushed it further right. Claiming that the neo-cons in control of the party today have made it more liberal is ludicrous.

Reagan supported amnesty for three million undocumented workers. Can you even imagine in your wildest dreams what these local bloggers would say if a Republican candidate even hinted that he had dreamed about an amnesty program? Can you imagine Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage/Ingram and the rest doing anything but savaging Reagan over it?

Reagan signed the first pro-abortion law in the nation as governor of California. Lord, help him! Today he’d be tarred and feathered then burned at the stake.

He trusted the USSR, the "evil empire" enough to negotiate arms reduction. The new conservative neo-con’s are frightened by their shadows that they think even having diplomatic contact with a podunk little country like Syria is enough strengthen the terrorists and threaten America. What would they do to Reagan today if he proposed negotiating with even a third-rate country like Iran?

Reagan was way, way, way too “liberal” for the right-wing true conservatives who took over the Republican, got elected and took control of the entire government, implemented all of their polices, and as a result produced a catastrophic war, smeared the reputation of the United States in every corner of the world, produced massively staggering deficits out of the budget surplus they were given and set out on a course of destroying the Constitution.

There is not the slightest iota of a chance that today’s Republican Party would nominate or elect Ronald Reagan.

There you go with all of those inconvenient facts and figures again. Sshhheeesh.

Good Job.

But I can't blame you for trying. Because you learned it from the master of spin himself, Bill Clinton.

Like your post above, Clinton tried to have his cake and eat it too.

Sorry, but you cannot simultaneously take ALL of the CREDIT and be absolved of ALL BLAME. The world doesn't work that way.

I don't wear glasses. Looks like the myopia is your and Main's problem. Except, perhaps, in your own little fantasy world.

Because the FACT is this. No President can take complete credit for, nor the blame for, the ups and downs of the economy. There are far too many variables and far too much lead time for a sitting President to reign supreme over any economy.

Your stats MEAN NOTHING. They are what they are. Attempting to credit any President with dominion over the economy (with one exception as a minor influence - FDR - the exception that proves the rule - and only because he was elected for three terms).

But the most basic thing you forgot was that the LAWs of the land - bills which appropriate funds and authorize SPENDING are enacted by Congress - so if you are going to foist blame or give credit, at least start where the bills are generated. CONGRESS. But again, their reach is also limited.

And finally, I nominate you to sit down and negotiate with your friend Ahmadinejad. Maybe if you bring him some footballs signed by Mike Vick, he will seriously consider NOT trying to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. How naive.

From the other side of the tracks

If you think that Reagan’s original tax cut in 1981 and then his tax increases had no effect on the economy and that Clinton’s very substantial tax increases had no effect on the economy then we’ve just gotta disagree. But such is life!

And I always like it when y’all make up stuff for me like your Ahmadinejad scenario and then shoot it down as naïve. I suppose it is a lot easier than arguing against a position I have actually taken.

But speaking of naïve, the way it really works is that the administration and the people over at OMB write a budget and send it over to Congress. Congress then tweaks it, usually by less than 1%.

After Bush (and other Presidents) send up a budget, they make a big speech about it that’s covered in all the MSM.

Then what happens is that the House and Senate Budget Committee members either proclaim that the budget is “DOA”, or they say stuff like: “President Bush is cutting programs X, Y, and Z and this will result in poor babies starving to death in the cold” or “President Bush’s budget maintains his tax cuts”.

You didn’t seriously believe that the budget was originated by Congress do you?

How DARE Jeff Carter intrude upon our carefully constructed realities here with his damnable facts and statistics?

Surely he of all people must be aware that FACTS HAVE A WELL-KNOWN LIBERAL BIAS??

Hit him again with your theories and suppositions, trax! Don't let him get away with this travesty!
_____________________________________________________
Wall Street Journal: FairTax,Flawed Tax
Unspinning the FairTax

Gotta agree with Jeff on this one......may not agree with Daddy C on most things (especially lately....WHOOAA) but hits it out on this.....as does Main. Trax is pretty myopic and has them ol' neocon blinders all the time anyway so he's kinda Mr. Magoo like with most of his "insights" anyway.

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

What's he done lately? He's been pretty laid back recently. I'm trying to prod him into doing something controversial to liven the place up!

'nuff said

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

But its such a nice day let's not argue.

By the way, did you see what Olmert said about a "South African-style struggle" recently?

Olmert warns of 'end of Israel'

I wonder what he was referring to?

But thats old news. Anyway, based on historical evidence, we won't have to wait to long for him to say something worth discussing!

Peace!

No argument here Jeff.....I agree with lots of what you say, not all. Anyway, it is nice to see some "snow" finally. I don't like to think about what Olmert may be inferring but don't believe it will happen anyway, at least based on what most of my Israeli friends say. The future of Israel MUST stay secure and safe, that's it, plain and simple. Israel was Israel way before anything else was around and thanks to some very brave and strong individuals it is again and always shall be. Amen.

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

;>} Have a grateful day ;>}

Shalom uv'racha leYisrael.

That was a good shot- didn't work?

_______________________
"Hope Changes Everything"

It is not a theory. It is plain truth. And the truth is the current Republican Party bears no resemblance to the Republican Party of our fathers. Today's Republican Party has lost its bearings and is leaning farther left by increasing the size of government and overspending. Big government and overspending used to be primarily democratic domains. They are no more.

But Clinton screwed up this nation in far more ways than Bush could even contemplate. No brag, just fact.

In the wake of the Clinton administration's disasterous excuse for foreign policy (bombings on demand, and Michael Jordan signed basketballs for N. Korea), the next President was doomed to failure; Clinton's foreign policy essentially placed a bullseye on the forehead of every American (remember the pharmaceutical factory we bombed in Sudan that CLINTON NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR?). A lot of other events also led up to it, but as a result, we got 9/11.

From a historical perspective, Bush will be remembered as a strong President who protected our nation while sticking to his convictions despite enormous media pressure to compromise his principles. He will also be remembered for being overly loyal to some (Rumsfled, should have fired him years ago), but in the end, a net positive.

Who really deserves most of the blame for all of the current rancor, divisiveness, and mean-spirited state of affairs across this nation? The media. They feed on it. And they feed it to us 24/7. In the end, it is our own fault, too. Our appetite is insatiable.

From the other side of the tracks