See what I mean? If so-called "less intrusive government" conservatives like this are going to roll over on obvious cases of over-extended govt, then what WON'T they roll over for. Whether it's the PATRIOT Act, the Terri Schiavo case, or constitutional amendments defining marriage, then we can't rely on the so-called conservatives of the party to hold the theocrats in check. That's just too much to hope for.

And Krem, the Congress in this case passed a law changing the jurisdiction of what should have remained in state jurisdiction in a clear-cut case of spousal rights that shouldn't even have gotten to the STATE court level. Yes, that's a collosal intervention. Do you know that the Schiavo supporters woke up President Bush in the middle of the night to handle this legislation?

Maybe if I had said these bills were proposed by Democrats, you'd have second thoughts about it.

I think liberal activists were about as vocal as they could be, but Democrats were their usual quiet, spineless selves.

Sorry, I meant by sign off that they'll eat up the first case they probably can to find this act unconstitutional. They'll do it through another case that on the surface isn't about this act, I have no doubt.



That's short term. Being against it now is very different. What they did manage to do was collapse a life/death issue into a, in theory, completely unrelated legal issue, and then got the rest of the states used to hearing about it. I have no doubt its the groundwork for mobilzation around anything having to do with the physical body and the court system/federal legislation. Its just subtle and visionary... kind of like Rove.

Funny you should talk about that. On my way home right now I was listening to the Rollye James show. She represents the conservatives as you want them to be, and it's really indicative that her show goes on the air at 12am, while the day hours are dominated by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on Philly's talk radio.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, but on the surface it seemed so similar! Kinda like you comparing the Republicans to the Taliban ;-)

Heh, yeah. This is what I meant to say.

Seriously, i'm tired of the Democrats on the hill doing nothing, saying nothing, and standing for nothing. It's embarrassing.

EDIT: I was connecting two seperate points in my response. But I wonder what exactly you're saying it's indicative of.



First, given the number of times conservatives have referred to liberals as communists, I think they can take a little of their own medicine.

Second, I would think libertarian conservatives of all people would be far more deeply concerned about the theocrats who dominate the Republican party than liberals, who aren't necessarily opposed to big government in all cases.

Absolutely agreed. I really hope Howard Dean can shoot some life back into them, but I haven't seem him around on these cases.

He's starting, he justr took over. I'm surprised at how people think he's ultra-left just because he's more direct and has a bit of a voice. In VT he was fairly fiscally tight actually, but everyone freaks out and calls him some extreme socialist. I think he'll do the party some good mostly because he is fairly moderate, but he's consistent and doesn't waver so much. Lets see what he can do. There are a couple people I would watch closely in the next few years including him, Obama, and Richardson.

Or we could be adults and not use name-calling. Whadda ya say?

First of all, what's a libertarian conservative? If you're trying to describe me, I've already explained to you in another thread, why I am not all that concerned about the right-wing Christian agenda, compared to the liberal agenda. It's hard for me to add anything more to it.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that I myself subscribe to their agenda. I hope you can make that distinction.

It's indicative of what you're saying: that old-school conservatism is not a real popular ideology, if you can call it an ideology. Most people on the right are moving into either social conservatism or into neoconservatism.

Hey, Zell Miller stood for something

The Republicans




I bed to differ. Some states are, others aren't. Regardless there are some awefully ingenious men out there who have managed to collapse the two (fiscal libertarians and the religious right), to the point where regardless of what the libertarians are discussing (let me guuess...deregulation) its still going to be furthering what the religious right are demanding (religious readings of civil law). Why? Because both use a discussion that is timeless, situationless, and never changing. 30 years ago fiscal libetarians were demanding the same deregulation they're demanding now. They demand the same thing for health insurance that they do for schools, businesses, courts, clothing, food, and anything/everything else. Its not to say that that is directly in-line with religious demands, but it sure does support the religious demands for applying god to everything regardless of time or issue too.

What exactly is unadult about name calling? Adults do it all the time. Smart ones. How do you think liberals became synomimized with Communists?

That's not to say I'm for calling anyone HERE names. That's different. But referring to Republican leaders as douche bags or Democrats as spineless, meh. People here can call Democrats or Republicans anything they want.



Perhaps Goldwater conservative might be a more common term. I mean the conservatives who used to advocate smaller less intrusive government and more civil liberty. And I HOPE I mean conservatives who would attack or at least criticize the theocrats who've taken over the Republicans regardless of their own affiliations or sympathies.

I've seen them around, but they are not to be found here apparently. And unfortunately.



What I know is that someone who claims not to be on either side should be equally critical of both sides. Otherwise what's the point of making the claim?

What I think is that the current Republicans use fiscally conservative words and phrases to justify an agenda that isn't at all fiscally conservative but may appear just ENOUGH to appease what's left of their fiscally conservative base.

In other words, if you support tax cuts for the rich, you can call it fiscal conservatism, even though it's actually part of an agenda that isn't at ALL fiscally conservative. That part of it appears as if it is and that's the part they sell to the base.

There is absolutely no justification for comparing Republicans to the Taliban or Democrats to Communists - there is simply no comparison, other than the artificial similarities. Calling some people douchebags or spineless, is different, but it's still in bad taste, considering that you're not doing it to their face.

Does that mean you concede that Civil Rights legislation DOES in fact intrude on civil liberties? ;-)\

In any case, those people still exist, but they're not very prominent in Washington or, apparently, in Philadelphia area.


That's only because you're applying your own standards to people who do not share your ideology.

There is your problem right there; you expect me to be critical of both sides EQUALLY. I do not want to be, considering that one sides holds views that are closer to mine than the other's.

Now, that is simply ridiculous. Does that mean that Democrats are also in lock-step with the religious right because Democrats always want to spend my money to look out for th e"little guy"?

I don't do it anyone's face because it's against the rules of this forum. Even if Tom "the scumbag" Delay joined this forum, I couldn't tell him what I really think of him.

I do freely admit, however, that it's in bad taste to call him a douche bag. Yep.



Nope, nor does it mean I agree with small govt conservatives on many issues. But I do appreciate the ideology more, especially now in the shadows of the Republican theocrats.



It would be one thing if you said, "well, I don't agree with them on this but I do agree with them on other issues." But you don't. You defend, ignore, or dismiss issues advocated on the religious right that are clearly antithetical to what you claim to advocate. Hell, even many of the most partisan right-wingers vocally objected to the Congressional actions in the Terri Schiavo case. Staunch small govt conservatives have expressed concerns over the PATRIOT Act. And even loyal right-wing pundits have joined in condemning Cornyn's comments the other day about terrorist actions against the judiciary being somewhat understandable.

Another example of the party of less intrusive govt at work:

SAN FRANCISCO (Hollywood Reporter) - The chairman of one of the entertainment industry's most important congressional committees says he wants to take the enforcement of broadcast decency standards into the realm of criminal prosecution.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis., told cable industry executives attending the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference here on Monday that criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

I am not paid to be a pundit or to appease to your twisted sense of what my opinions should be like. I have my opinions on a lot of subjects and most of the time I keep them to myself. But that doesn't mean that you get to make up my stance on the issues for me.

And once again, you fail to see the bigger picture. The problem here is not the fact that he wants to criminalize indecency, although that's certainly troubling. The problem here is that a government body has jurisdiction over a private medium. The problem is the classification of airwaves as public.

I'm just wondering which part of this kind of stuff is closer to your own views. It could be his opposition to the "regulatory process," although his solution is to replace that with JAIL.

That's still regulatory process, taken to the extreme. It is not at all close to my views.

I didn't think so, which gets at the big picture you mentioned earlier. I don't object to this kind of action on regulatory grounds as I have no principle objection to regulation of business. Instead, this law is part of an escalating attempt to impose a theocracy in America, to which I most certainly do object. And that attempt is being led almost excusively by Republicans (with a little help from Democrats like Zell Miller).

My point is that whatever illusion there is about Republicans being for small govt or whatever else roughly parallels your views, it is mere illusion. While liberals are certainly not averse to big govt, the motivation is entirely about the general welfare of the United States citizeny under the auspices of the Constitution. Not so the modern Republican party, which is seeks to establish a Christian-centric religious nation governed by religious right-wing dogma.

My head started spinning - quicker - and quicker - until it eventually popped off.

Good thing I don't need to see the keyboard to type.

Republicans are not all cut from the same cloth. Republican party helped elect a genuine libertarian into Congress - that is a very difficult feat. But trust me, I hold no illusions about Republicans.


Assuming that what you're saying it's true (and it's a VERY big hypothetical), you have to realize that the two are not that much different. Substitute Christianity for Secular Humanism, and you've got Republicans and Democrats (under your definition anyway) working towards the same goal.