[nretdjuend]

...Bottom line, would you rather party with Ted Kennedy or Karl Rove?

Does Mary Jo Kopechne get a vote here?

[Eujacwta]

The federal government is supposed to exercise the powers it does have. Enforcing the 14th amendment is one of them. Brown v. Board of Education was a good example of why precedence should not be held sacred when the past decisions clearly conflict with the plain meaning of the Constitution.

State and local governments are less likely to overreach in ways that the citizens are powerless to change. Especially for small states, the federal government is too controlling, and there's little they can do about it. When there's 50 states, if one overreaches, you can leave. It's much harder when the federal government is doing it. The best argument against liberals' love of a strong federal government is that quite often people like George Bush get control of it.

Good points ...though I think characterizing the love of a strong federal government exclusively as the liberals' love ignores the current ruling party that continues to over reach and expand the powers of the federal government (i.e. The Patriot Act). The current policy of the federal government of continuing to cut taxes only pushes the burden and the reach down to the states and the locals.

Again, I think we're splitting hairs. Since the Founding Fathers, we've been trying to strike a balance between the power of the federal government, the state governments and the local governments. (BTW - Iraq is now struggling with the same problem and if we're still arguing about it after 229 years, I think it's a safe bet that Iraq's future is, well ...it's going to be along road).

I guess your postulate that state and local governments are less likely to over reach is based on the fact that their governments are closer to their constituents. However, some of the most primitive legislation this country has ever seen has been enacted on the local level …

Again ...I guess it's a balance...

[traiffhetl]

In reading about the recent Supreme Court nomination it occurred to me that conservatives always fear that their nominations will move to the left ...i.e. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ...more than liberals ever fear that their nominations will move to the right.

What could be the reason for this? It seems strange. Hmmm....

No one moves to the left once appointed. The truth is that the faggot-jew Republican leadership constantly lies to the people. For example, John Roberts, whom Bush appointed to the Chief Justice, is a HOMOSEXUAL-rights activist who has done FREE legal work to give homosexuals special rights. Alito, the current man up to bat, has expressed support for pervert special rights and in spite of what any liar Republican might tell you, he has voted to support virtually every liberal, anti-constitutional precedence. Both Roberts and Alito have given their word that they'll stand by Roe v. Wade.

President Bush Sr., who appointed Souter, was the first US president to invite homosexual activists to the white house. His son, Bush Junior, is the first president to openly support homosexual "unions" (marriage). The only reason Bush Sr. appointed Thomas is because of racial preferences, not because Bush liked how conservative he was.

But, I guess the Bush klanh are real conservatives because they're both lying warmongers... What the fjewk makes grassroots "conservatives" such total suckers?

[Bobobsdo]

Philip, you never answered my question in another thread. Is there anybody you DON'T hate?

[HoniSoniproca]

I heard another interesting reason why it might seem like the constitution is on the left...because when they wrote it they were going against the more right leaning British government at the time. So there is a lot of freedom for the people in the constitution, which is a leftist idea. Freedom

[DEMassteers]

I heard another interesting reason why it might seem like the constitution is on the left...because when they wrote it they were going against the more right leaning British government at the time. So there is a lot of freedom for the people in the constitution, which is a leftist idea. Freedom

The Constitution at the time it was written was probably the most liberal document ever written, in that it guaranteed the rights of the individual to live his own life without interference.

What has happened in the meantime is that the left (not liberals in the true sense of the word) has come to represent government control over every aspect of our lives, cradle to grave. It is a return to the government that the Pilgrims sought to escape. It is a bastardization of everything that America represents.

[ClapekDodki]

No one moves to the left once appointed. The truth is that the faggot-jew Republican leadership constantly lies to the people. For example, John Roberts, whom Bush appointed to the Chief Justice, is a HOMOSEXUAL-rights activist who has done FREE legal work to give homosexuals special rights. Alito, the current man up to bat, has expressed support for pervert special rights and in spite of what any liar Republican might tell you, he has voted to support virtually every liberal, anti-constitutional precedence. Both Roberts and Alito have given their word that they'll stand by Roe v. Wade.

President Bush Sr., who appointed Souter, was the first US president to invite homosexual activists to the white house. His son, Bush Junior, is the first president to openly support homosexual "unions" (marriage). The only reason Bush Sr. appointed Thomas is because of racial preferences, not because Bush liked how conservative he was.

But, I guess the Bush klanh are real conservatives because they're both lying warmongers... What the fjewk makes grassroots "conservatives" such total suckers?

Doth protest too much methinks ...you know, I've always wondered what people, especially men, have against homosexuals.

The way I look at it, if 95% of the men in the world were gay it would give me just enough straight male friends to drink and watch sports with (not that gays don't watch sports or drink) and all the women I could ever want.

It seems to me (at least when I was single) that it’s a numbers game. I’ve never wanted good-looking guys or any guys for that matter competing with me for women. Gay guys aren't in the competition so I don't care what they do.

It's strange though; having worked as a bouncer for a number of years I always had guys that bragged about "beating up queers". Why didn't they just kick a puppy or slap a baby?

I eventually concluded that there must be some insecurity in "queer-bashers". I can only surmise that they have some internal conflict that causes them to lash out ...maybe they have some questions about their own sexuality ...many suspect that Hitler had one Jewish grandparent...I don’t know, it just doesn’t make any sense to me …

[Teareerah]

The Constitution at the time it was written was probably the most liberal document ever written, in that it guaranteed the rights of the individual to live his own life without interference.

What has happened in the meantime is that the left (not liberals in the true sense of the word) has come to represent government control over every aspect of our lives, cradle to grave. It is a return to the government that the Pilgrims sought to escape. It is a bastardization of everything that America represents.

Maybe cradle to grave ...but we skip the bedroom and the altar...that we'll leave to the conservatives to decide for us ...

[ELURNSERB]

Good points ...though I think characterizing the love of a strong federal government exclusively as the liberals' love ignores the current ruling party that continues to over reach and expand the powers of the federal government (i.e. The Patriot Act). The current policy of the federal government of continuing to cut taxes only pushes the burden and the reach down to the states and the locals.


I'm speaking mainly of high concepts here. Obviously, once Republicans saw what great power they wielded, they were corrupted and now have the hubris to think they can implement a conservative form of Big Government.

But in terms of ideology, outside the way politics is actually done, liberals are in favor of centralized government, while conservatives prefer decentralized.

I guess your postulate that state and local governments are less likely to over reach is based on the fact that their governments are closer to their constituents. However, some of the most primitive legislation this country has ever seen has been enacted on the local level …

Yes, but that tends to offend the people outside the locality more than the people inside. And anyone can move out of a city with relative ease.

I heard another interesting reason why it might seem like the constitution is on the left...because when they wrote it they were going against the more right leaning British government at the time. So there is a lot of freedom for the people in the constitution, which is a leftist idea.

Except for reproductive rights, I fail to think of any examples where the left favors liberty over regulation. And I sense that being pro-choice is more a tactical stance than an actual core belief, as many liberals are getting sick at the idea that people will choose to abort babies based on disabilities or sex. I sense regulation coming even to reproductive freedom as soon as the right is no longer a threat to overturn Roe.

But I'm game, give me some examples where the left favors liberty as opposed to regulation? Besides sex. I'm waiting.

[sbrthrds]

But I'm game, give me some examples where the left favors liberty as opposed to regulation? Besides sex. I'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

Gay rights (you may deem this a sex issue, but in reality it is more related to property rights), freedom of speech & expression (i.e. protesting the war), separation of church and state ...

[Katoabralia]

Gay rights (you may deem this a sex issue, but in reality it is more related to property rights

It's still about sex, because a gay man is still subject to the same violations of his right to his property as everyone else is by liberal legislation. The only difference here is the sex.

freedom of speech & expression (i.e. protesting the war),

Wrong. Few, if any conservatives have called for restricting speech in regards to the war or anything else. Liberals, on the other hand, are all into political correctness and banning political speech if there might be money from sources they don't like behind it. McCain-Feingold was mainly liberal legislation, although it couldn't have passed without some Republicans and Bush's signature. Still, the point stands. Conservatives are the main enemies of restrictions on political speech, liberals the main proponents of regulated speech.

separation of church and state

That's not a liberty/regulation issue.

[avaiguite]

Maybe a life-long appointment insulated from politics allows judges to truly interpret the original intent of the Constitution, as it should be applied today.

Let me guess, second amendment should only allow weapons that existed at the time it was written?

[draigenia]

In reading about the recent Supreme Court nomination it occurred to me that conservatives always fear that their nominations will move to the left ...i.e. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter ...more than liberals ever fear that their nominations will move to the right.

What could be the reason for this? It seems strange. Hmmm....

Maybe a life-long appointment insulated from politics allows judges to truly interpret the original intent of the Constitution, as it should be applied today.

People tend to acquire wisdom as they age, particularly if they have open and expanding minds. Our temperament also tends to mellow with age, and also our perspective tends to get more circumspect.

When I was 18, I was a Republican, when I was only self-concerned and was motivated primarily by my drive to acquire wealth for myself. Now I am older, and more concerned about my community, and the welfare of future generations, and tend to not get as excited about meaningless things.

[MpbY5dkR]

People tend to acquire wisdom as they age, particularly if they have open and expanding minds. Our temperament also tends to mellow with age, and also our perspective tends to get more circumspect.

When I was 18, I was a Republican, when I was only self-concerned and was motivated primarily by my drive to acquire wealth for myself. Now I am older, and more concerned about my community, and the welfare of future generations, and tend to not get as excited about meaningless things.

The difference between you and me is that I think it's immoral for the goverment to take away too much of my "meaningless things" than you do. The government should only take what it needs, and it should be done in a fair way.

Ben

[medio]

The difference between you and me is that I think it's immoral for the goverment to take away too much of my "meaningless things" than you do. The government should only take what it needs, and it should be done in a fair way.

Ben

I think you're mistaken about that Ben. The GOP wants to take more of your money away from you, and less away from me.

I think they should take more from guys like me, and less from guys like you. (At least until you become a guy like me.)

I think progressive taxation is fair. I'm sure my assets are far greater than yours, my income is greater than yours, and I work less.

This country has been very very good to me. I think I should pay my fair share.

In short, I too, think you pay too much in taxes Ben, and people like me get away with murder.

[Soassesaisp]

That has little to do with Constitutional interpretation. Progressive taxation is clearly constitutional.

I think that whether you are liberal or conservative, you'd support strict constructionist judges. Unless of course you are more wed to government programs than you are to civil liberties issues. I think all Democrats should ask themselves which they think is more important, because they can't have both in the long run. Strong government always leads to less civil liberties, not more. Especially when you actively try to use government to restrict "other" people's liberties, such as business owners. It always comes back around to you and you end up with things like the Patriot Act. A piece of legislation that could never have happened with a strict constructionist court.

[oneliRafmeene]

As a business owner, I know one can be pro-business and a progressive at the same time.

[r9tbayfC]

Sure you can. Bill Clinton did it. There is no real conflict between generous social programs and being pro-business.

However, when you cross the line into seeing business as the enemy somehow, and want to pass new regulations that would somehow restrict their activities(or worse, restrict foreign trade), then you are getting into really bad territory.

It's the difference between being a Clinton Democrat and a Naderite. If you find yourself always talking about "corporations" this and "corporations" that, then there's a problem. Because business is the engine of the economy. tony Blair knows it. The Swedes and Finns and Swiss have known it forever, which is why their socialism has worked. They don't unduly interfere with business, nor do they see business as some kind of enemy of progress.

[surefireinvest]

I think you're mistaken about that Ben. The GOP wants to take more of your money away from you, and less away from me.

I think they should take more from guys like me, and less from guys like you. (At least until you become a guy like me.)

I think progressive taxation is fair. I'm sure my assets are far greater than yours, my income is greater than yours, and I work less.

This country has been very very good to me. I think I should pay my fair share.

In short, I too, think you pay too much in taxes Ben, and people like me get away with murder.

Hmmmm....

Valid points, and thanks for the compliment.

In a perfect world, we could pay the same low amount, like 14% or so. Perhaps if we could quit fighing such costly wars, perhaps.

Ben

[alecaf]

Well there are places where they have little, no, and flat taxation.

We know what happens.

The rich get very very very very rich. And the poor get very very very very very poor, and there is no middle class.

Look at Paraguay, Columbia, Peru. They have such systems. Many say the lack of support for the lower classes is what has kept them 3rd world nations.

We know not from where the next Jonus Saulk is going to come. He could come from a household like mine, or from that of a crack whore in Compton California. We all benefit from the Jonus Saulks of the world. If we leave him in Compton and don't educate him, we all lose.

We like to preach to the world that America is about equality of opportunity.

It all depends on what standards we want to have as a society. Do we want the upper class living in huge houses full of very cheap servants, while the underclass picks through our garbage like what happens in Brazil?

I don't think supporting the country that has been so good to me is "class warfare." I think it's payback.