<p>browninfall:
You reflect my points so well.</p>
<p>fundingfather:
Who exactly are you talking to?</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>Very coherent as well.</p>
<p>I hate to say this, because it sounds so - well, fourth-grade-ish - but the liberals have been imposing their mores and values on conservatives for a while - it’s just harder to notice because it’s couched in terms of “choice.” What many people ignore is that there is the de facto elimination of other lifestyles, because the liberal choices have become the norm.</p>
<p>Anyway… Griswold I see staying; you might have more of a point with Eisenstadt. (For those of you who are confused, Griswold held that states may not prohibit married persons from using contraception; Eisenstadt extended that right to unmarried persons.)</p>
<p>Long-term, we’re going to see a switch to liberals asking for state’s rights. (Which is why John Roberts scares the crap out of me - he’s not a Federalist; he’s not an originalist; he’s very, very conservative and intent on imposing those beliefs. See dissent in the Oregon assisted suicide case.) My advice: start NOW to join with the conservative/libertarian crowd who, philosophically, believes that state’s rights are a good thing. Medicinal marijuana? Access to contraception (if it’s moved in interstate commerce, the feds can regulate it - thank you, New Deal era jurisprudence)? Assisted suicide - those drugs moved in ISC, thank you. </p>
<p>The problem with an overly powerful central gov’t is that there is no where to turn if you don’t like who is in power. For years, the liberals loved this - their guys were in charge. The tide is turning - and the biggest allies are those who believe in limited federal powers. Problem is that the excesses of the New Deal (not the programmes and the social stuff - just the judicial justification for them) are coming back to haunt liberals.</p>
<p>ariesathena:
Maybe I don’t understand your post, but what I’m wondering reading is it how can conservatives carry forth the banners of states’ rights, smaller, less-intrusive government, and fiscal conservatism when so much of what they’ve actually done while in power defies those principles?</p>
<p>Can’t we all just get along? The messages on this thread give me some small hope that perhaps Republicans and Democrats can actually start talking to each other again in civil terms. Pat Robertson and Harry Belafonte don’t represent the mainstream - let’s make them both outcasts since they both seem incapable of civil discourse.</p>
<p>I was pleasantly surprised by the very reasonable editorial that the Washington Post (no bastion of conservatism) wrote re: endorsing Judge Alito. It’s written in the same spirit that the Republicans confirmed Justice Ginsburg in the 90’s. Here’s an excerpt and a link to the full editorial:</p>
<p>“Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law – which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law. However one reasonably defines the “mainstream” of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito’s work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/14/AR2006011400858.html</a></p>
<p>Biggreen, Nice idea, but if you mean we should all just “go along” to “get along,” I don’t see where we’d be doing anybody any favors.</p>
<p>The neo-cons will not stop until: women are back with no choices but raising kids, blacks go back to “knowing their proper place,” their president can break any law he doesn’t like, the rest of the world is terrified of us and submits to our every desire, college girls have to drop out of school because they’re pregnant from their latest date rape, women are dying from coat hanger abortions, we can torture, throw in jail and hide anybody we don’t like, we’re spied on, listened in on, photographed, subpeonaed and tracked like rats, the poor are living on the streets, the minimum wage is $3.00 a day, </p>
<p>and we’re all prayin’ to Jesus 5 times a day while facing Washington DC.</p>
<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>You apparently missed the whole Clinton presidency, the comments coming out of Coulter and Hannity’s mouths, and pretty much all of talk radio.</p>
<p>Peacenik: Congratulations, you have just moved into first place for over the top hyperbole. But, don’t get too comfortable in that position because TD is a very fierce competitor.</p>
<p>UCLAri: Certainly you understand the difference between rhetoric coming from elected officials and idiots on talk radio.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll lay off the talk radio idiots when the conservative segment of American society stops equating me with Michael Moore because I don’t support the Bush presidency.</p>
<p>You really don’t want to go down the Clinton Presidency road, do you? Can’t say that I missed it - or miss it. Would have been a terrific TV show - not sure though if it would have been a soap opera or a sitcom. Who can forget the Clinton money machine, Buddhist temples, no controlling legal authority, wag the dog, John Huang et al…wonderful years…perjury was no big deal…and we were witness to a period of time that NOW didn’t care if a man in a position of authority had a relationship with a young lady under his charge. </p>
<p>Civil liberties were respected then. I mean, after all, it was just a coincidence that Paula Jones was audited by the IRS when she started to talk about someone’s anatomy - same with the Travel office guys. You know too that it was all a mistake that the confidential FBI files of prominent Republicans somehow ended up in the White House, and the Branch Davidians…well they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry.</p>
<p>Sure…Rush Limbaugh calls the NOW gang “NAGS” (National Association of Gals)…it’s just like all the Hitler stuff.</p>
<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>Ohh, nice straw man. I like it! </p>
<p>The point was that the GOP is just as guilty of mudslinging as the Dems. You just seem to want to cling to some partisan belief that one party is “above it all.” I mean, c’mon, we could come up with dozens of examples on both sides.</p>
<p>
Ahh, thanks for bringing up Michael Moore. Can you imagine a gaggle of Republican Congressmen and Senators flocking to an Ann Coulter book signing like the Dems did to the opening of Michael Moore’s fictional documentary? Or having George Bush Sr. invite her to sit with him at the Republican convention like Jimmy Carter did with Michael Moore?</p>
<p>There’s lots more on the straw man if you’d like to hear it. Clearly he reigned over the high point for respect of civil liberties and our beloved Constitution in the history of the Republic. </p>
<p>Remind me again though, who was it specifically that called Clinton “Hitler”? Yeh, the Repubs throw mud, but they don’t hold a candle to the Roger Clemons’ of the left.</p>
<p>By the way, what do you think of all the Bush is “Hitler” and “world’s greatest terrorist” stuff? For some reason I don’t read too many complaints about it on this board from our left-leaning friends. I probably just missed them.</p>
<p>"“world’s greatest terrorist” </p>
<p>I reserved that one for Bill Clinton. :)</p>
<p>Hey, what about Clinton?</p>
<p>I remember Clinton getting compared to some communist leaders. But, to be fair, he didn’t preside over an overly publicized and feared bill like PATRIOT. I never said Clinton wasn’t bad, but what was that about straw men? I think the Hitler calling is just another example of a logical fallacy (some have dubbed it argumentum ad Nazium.) Silly, stupid, BS arguments that people break out when they don’t have evidence to make their point. </p>
<p>I love it when people try to argue that THEIR logical fallacy is worthwhile.</p>
<p>By the way, you say the GOP doesn’t hold a candle, but I seem to remember a lot of people making a point of calling Kerry unpatriotic and a traitor when the whole Swift Boat Vets thing came to light.</p>
<p>fundingfather,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. If I recall, Coulter and Hannity were quite popular at the RNC. And I seem to remember Zell Miller joining him for a book signing back in 2004.</p>
<p>
Really? Care to name a few of the “lot of people”? Short of a “lot of people”, one current or former Congressman, Senator or Republican party office holder who called Kerry a traitor or unpatriotic will do.</p>
<p>
Really? I guess I failed to catch either of them schmoozing on the floor with Bush Sr. or any other prominent Republican. Certainly they appeared as a interviewees of Hannity, but so did a lot of Dems appear with Colmes - that’s the format of the show.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you don’t listen to talk radio. I remember hearing at least half the callers making a point of calling Kerry unpatriotic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I recall Hannity getting pretty cozy with Gillespie and Miller. And you’re going to tell me that Limbaugh and his clones weren’t key in getting the GOP back into power?</p>
<p>FF, you are confused…little surprise there. There’s a difference between being a civilized man, which I am, and a polite man, which I am not always. I was going to compose my own further response regarding “civility” when in a wonderful spark of synchronicity, Digby saved me the trouble, excerpted here:
As someone accustomed to seeing the world in infinite shades of gray, I can certainly distinguish among my adversaries and opponents, noting redeeming characteristics along the way. But as Darcy said, there is, in every disposition, a tendency to some particular evil–a natural defect which not even the best education can overcome. Mine is to not suffer fools either well or gladly and liars even less, which puts you in a very bad way. When I next notice a redeeming characteristic in your case, it will be the first. And while I do believe in redemption but often it is beyond my power to grant.</p>
<p>Now scuttle along and meet up with your co-totalitiarians, who believe that the President has king-like powers when he decides, on the terms he decides, when he decides that the interests of state security demand so. The Gauleiters and the Schutzpolizei, the commisars and KGB generals, the whole ragged lot would cheer you on with whole-hearted approval.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3435252[/url]”>http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3435252</a></p>
<p>"On Aug. 27, 2005, two days before landfall, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a brief that declared that the impact from Katrina would likely exceed the projections of a disaster exercise a year earlier, which predicted massive flooding, loss of life and homes and other damage from such a storm.</p>
<p>The evening before the storm hit, the Department of Homeland Security circulated a report that Katrina had been upgraded to Category 5 and that it would “likely lead to severe flooding and/or breaching. This could leave the New Orleans metro area submerged for weeks or months.”</p>
<p>Ariesathena, would you please elaborate on your critique of John Roberts?</p>
<p>TD: attaboy big fella. The other day when you accused me of merely lying must have been one of your soft, puffy-cloud days. Now you are back to your old form of Nazi/communist references and the world is back in synchronicity. I feel better already.</p>