hugo

Nothing to do with Reaganomics our generation simply has never understood the need for thrift as our parents did. Part of it due to the fact government takes out so much of your money out of your check that it make saving more difficult.

Somewhere personal conservatism died out.

The Party's Over by Pat Buchanan on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent From the article:

Quit smoking when a pack went up to 50 cents,

We had our chance in '64. We have been spiraling downward ever since.

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981) Barry Goldwater

That's good.

Define "define", please.

Why don't you ever read about how racial views steer many blacks away from McCain?

Put on my red liberal hat for a moment: From Roe v. Wade's decision: The 14th Amendment: No protection for the unborn under the 14th The 9th Amendment: The fact abortion is not enumerated as a right in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right of the people. Abortion laws were quite lax during the colonial era. It was really in the latter half of the 19th century where harsh anti-abortion laws were passed by many state legislatures. The founding fathers were basically liberals in the classical sense of the word. They generally opposed government limits on individual actions; they generally opposed governments interfering with an individuals "pursuit of happiness." Yes, when the Constitution was formed it basically only applied to white men. The 14th Amendment corrected that error. Women are now entitled to engage in their own pursuit of happiness...which may not include birthing a child.

I always thought evil chinese fortune cookies would be fun. Take a pal out for chinese and switch cookies with one with a message such as "You'll be dead within six months".

Eddo, just hired his buddy, Antonio, to do a hit.

Stay around. It'll get better.

The debate tactic of attacking the person, instead of their message, is getting old.

If you did the same breakdown by sex you find it even farther askew. You can not expect different demographic groups to have similar incarceration rates.

I heart you, too. Today in the US a person with my political ideology is most frequently labeled a libertarian, in 1968 I would have been labeled a Goldwater conservative, in 1928 I would have been labeled a liberal. Sadly, most political debate today, is little more than name calling and personal attacks. To paraphrase Goldwater we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.

Wrong, Hitler was farther to the left, on economic issues, than FDR. When things were going well in Germany many Keynesians were applauding him. A bit on Hitler's economic policies, QUOTE In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it." QUOTE What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country. Sounds like left-wing economic policies to me. A bit more information: QUOTE In 1977, Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in his book The Age of Uncertainty that Hitler "was the true protagonist of the Keynesian ideas." QUOTE Keynes himself even explained that his theories were not incompatible with national socialism. In the forward to the German edition of his book The General Theory (1936), Keynes wrote that "the theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than…under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire." From "Time Magazine" Jan 2, 1939 QUOTE "Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism."

Was not Hitler a Keynesian socialist?

I happen to be a radical myself. Ron Paul is certainly considered a radical and is certainly less mainstream than Pelosi. Whenever you see a 400-1 vote the dissenter is most likely Paul.

And she fully supports Roe v. Wade with it's allowing states to restrict abortion. From Roe v Wade WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE'S IMPORTANT AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN POTENTIAL LIFE, THE "COMPELLING" POINT IS AT VIABILITY. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE FETUS THEN PRESUMABLY HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MEANINGFUL LIFE OUTSIDE THE MOTHER'S WOMB. STATE REGULATION PROTECTIVE OF FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY THUS HAS BOTH LOGICAL AND BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS. IF THE STATE IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING FETAL LIFE AFTER VIABILITY, IT MAY GO SO FAR AS TO PROSCRIBE ABORTION DURING THAT PERIOD, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE LIFE OR HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. MEASURED AGAINST THESE STANDARDS, ART. 1196 OF THE TEXAS PENAL CODE, IN RESTRICTING LEGAL ABORTIONS TO THOSE "PROCURED OR ATTEMPTED BY MEDICAL ADVICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SAVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER," SWEEPS TOO BROADLY. THE STATUTE MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABORTIONS PERFORMED EARLY IN PREGNANCY AND THOSE PERFORMED LATER, AND IT LIMITS TO A SINGLE REASON, "SAVING" THE MOTHER'S LIFE, THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROCEDURE. THE STATUTE, THEREFORE, CANNOT SURVIVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACK MADE UPON IT HERE.

And there are radicals on the far right who would execute gays, I see little sentiment on the left for aborting a healthy full tem infant. In fact the left, as I stated earlier, almost universally supports Roe v. Wade despite the fact that Roe v. Wade limits abortions. Anna, actually there is a process to amend the constitution. That is why blacks and women can now vote (good amendments) and we have a federal income tax (a bad amendment), Some of these amendments aren't that old. What our Constitution tried to prevent is an all powerful federal government and a tyranny of a temporary majority. Neither abortion rights or gun rights have any possibility of being subject to a constitutional amendment, at this time, due to the fact amendments require super majorities.

Actually, Rowe v. Wade, the ruling liberals strive to protect, does limit abortions. Ms. Palin should thank God for the Roe v. Wade decision. Without it she would not be the VP nominee and would quite possibly still be a simple housewife. One thing for sure no court decision in our century screwed up Presidential politics more. I go by the original intent standard when judging the constitution. The founding fathers certainly intended to preserve an individuals right to bear arms and had no intent to guarantee rights to abortion. Abortion should be a state issue. Of course, McCain/ Feingold was the greatest attack on the 1st Amendments free speech guarantees since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 it's co-author got the nomination of the so-called conservative party. A few quotes: What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356 "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950] "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789 " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380 " ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..." -- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

TJ, shut the hell up and let's get back to other things.

Whites and asians should ban together to insure that the 14th Amendment is properly adhered to. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If Obama looked like Dennis Kucinich he would not be the nominee.