Cynical Nation

If the republicans maintain the control of the congress in November after all this, it will be simply catastrophic for the country. I am concerned that this may happen, unless the democrats become more aggressive in making their case. The country DESPERATELY needs change.

> The country DESPERATELY needs change.

I've got a milk jug full I can donate.

I've got a milk jug full I can donate.

You dont believe me, huh?

Second City Television, but I can't remember which set of characters. But damn, I did love that show.

Andrea Martin as Indira, in a take-off on Evita, was amazingly funny at the time.

Hoser.

Heh, I think of that "Indira" promo more often than I'd like to admit. :-) It had Slim Whitman in it, as I recall.

"The country DESPERATELY needs change." (BW)

Hey! Whaddaya know, I agree with that.

This country NEEDS a far more Conservative government....maybe Newt (I call him "Newtie").

We have, at minimum, another 20 years (probably another 25 years) of hard fighting...more, if we continue fighting the kind of politically correct "war" we've fought so far.

Wahhabism/radicalized Islam must be wiped off the face of the earth, so it's going to be a much tougher job than dealing with Nazism and Communism were (both were defeated by war, subsequently discredited and their followers marginalized and demoralized)...this will take a much more complete an eradication due to the religious element involved.

This country NEEDS a far more Conservative government

Hey JMK,
You are in the 5% minority in the country that believes that. Conservatism is NOT an American value. Sorry. America is by definition a liberal and progressive country.

No wonder you're constantly being disappointed BW!

Let me apprise you of the real facts;

"Only 16% of the population self-identifes as liberal. 36% self-identifies as conservative, and 47% as moderate."

http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/2536-Emboldened-Democrats-Court-Partys-Left-Wing.html

But aren't most "Moderates" more Right or Left?

According to the Battleground Polls, YES...but that's only more bad news for the "progressive Left."

Battleground Poll 2006
(Few Real Moderates)

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be

Very conservative 18%
Somewhat conservative 41%
Moderate 2%
Somewhat liberal 28%
Very liberal 8%
Unsure/refused 3%

Again, let’s conflate those categories:

D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be
Conservative 59%
Moderate 2%
Liberal 36%
Unsure/refuse 3%

And let’s look at the percentages of “very conservative” and “very liberal” of “conservative” and “liberal,” respectively:

Very conservative 18%
Very liberal 8%

So just like in the last Battleground Poll, we see that America is substantially more conservative than liberal, evidence of how out of touch the moonbats are, and that the “most Americans are moderates” line is crap.

See? It's the "Very Liberal" (so-called "Progressives") that register in the single digits, while the "Very Conservative are pushing nearly 20%.

Why do you insist on making numbers up and setting yourself up for huge disappointments?

If America was anything close to a "Progressive"/Left-wing nation, Michael Moore would be beloved, and not reviled by the vast majority of Americans and the Dixie Chicks wouldn't be cancelling tour dates and singing to half empty concert halls.

There it is, BW, the stark and naked truth.

Hey JMK,
America has always been the country of freedom, tolerance and progress. All these are clasically anti-conservative values. That can not change. There is a 20-25% of the country that is very conservative and clearly against progress. The 47% that identifies themselves as moderates are indeed moderates. So the real numbers are:
Liberals + moderates 63% and conservatives 36% (of which only 20-25% is far-right conservative).

I dont understand why do you think is good to be a conservative. It is not cool at all. Think about it. There would have never been progress in the world if conservative people were in control.

> America has always been the country of freedom, tolerance and progress. All these are clasically anti-conservative values.

Sorry, Blue, that's just Kool-Aid-drinking B.S.

Again BW, you're using nebulous and undefined terms that OBVIOUSLY most Americans don't agree with.

Otherwise about 60% of Americans wouldn't consider themselves "Very Conservative" (18%) and "Somewhat Conservative" (41%)...that appx 60% of the public (according to a reputable poll...not merely your own opinion, which is all you offered) certainly believe in Freedom!

It's defining FREEDOM that is vital.

America's Founders ALL defined "freedom" as self-ownership" and personal responsibility, a/k/a "Individual Liberty," or freedom FROM government.

EVERY single ONE of America's Founders would agree with me that no one has any innate entitlement/"right" to be taken care of by others.

America's basic social values are "freedom" as INDIVIDUALISM (self-responsibility), the right to private property and equality before the law.

There is neither any allusion to such vague and nebulous terms as "tolerance" or "progress."

To me, there is no "progress" (a/k/a prosperity) without a market based economy coupled with private ownership of property - which by the way, IS anathema to "Liberals," "Progressives" and "Leftists."

Bottom line, I gave you documentation via a respected Battleground Poll that found that 59% of Americans call themselves Conservative (18% VERY Conservative) & 41% Somewhat Conservative), while only 8% self-identify as VERY Liberal.

As for "Conservativism and progress," there has NEVER been a viable alternative to the market-based economy and every possible version of a State managed economy has been tried.

In that regard, ALL real "progress" and prosperity has come through Conservativism's adherance to the market-based economy.

"As for "Conservativism and progress," there has NEVER been a viable alternative to the market-based economy"

And what makes you think that only conservatives are for market-based economy? That shows your complete misunderstanding of what liberalism is.

There are other things that go along with "conservatism" that literally impede progress. Not only now but throughout history. A classic example are the negative effects of social ultra-conservatism or religious conservatism. Science would have never advanced if there was a "conservative" thinking among scientists and inventors, or if religious conservatives were making the calls for them. In fact, thats exactly why stem cell research is currently impeded in this country under the Bush administration.

But to give you an example of how "conservatism" can be real bad, look at the Taliban. How would you characterize them? Liberal or conservative? I am sure they call themselves "conservative".

Dont misinterpret me. I dont mean to compare right-wing conservatives to the Taliban. Of course not. I am just trying to make the point that the term "conservative" is clearly inclusive of certain things that are not good at all.

If two people arguing on a blog don't even agree what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean, how can any reliable poll data be collected when you ask people to categorize themselves as one or the other?

> And what makes you think that only conservatives are for market-based economy?

What makes you think that only liberals are for freedom?

"What makes you think that only liberals are for freedom?".

Listening to Ann Coulter and Jerry Falwell when they talk.

You can do better than that, Blue.

Are you going to admit that there are both liberals *and* conservatives who

* love their country
* cherish liberty
* support a market economy

Or are you going to demonize everyone who disagrees with you by casting him/her as an anti-American lunatic?

In other words, are you going to be like the Taliban, or are you going to be mature enough to realize that some people who disagree with you might also cherish the same goals, hopes and dreams that you hold dear?

American Conservativism IS "Americanism" BW, a viewpoint which places America's interests ahead of all else, defines "freedom" as "Individual Liberty/personal responsibility, or "freedom FROM governmental intrusion."

It respects private property rights as sacred, and seeks to limit government action at nearly every turn, and refuses to see the criminal as "a victim of society," thus Conservativism seeks PUNISHMENT instead of any "theraputic approach" to crime, especially violent crime.

Liberalism generally sees "community" as more important than individualism, in direct opposition to America's Founder's design. They see it as a governmental/communal responsibility that even those unwilling to work be "taken care of" at taxpayer expense. They see criminality as a logical reaction to poverty and failure and thus view the criminal/thug as a "victim of society," and thus eschew punishment in favor of a more theraputic approach to crime.

That's why Liberalism seeks ever larger government, because it sees every problem as a "governmental or communal responsibility," and views Individualism as unworkable, or "unfair" for most people.

ALL of the most corrosive ideas offered up to human society over the past Century have come from the Liberal-Left.

Again, even you prove that out. America was Founded on these key principles; (1) "Freedom" as Individual Liberty (self-ownership & personal responsibility), (2) Private Property Rights and (3) Very Limited and Localized Governance.

Nowhere, except in today's murky Liberal minds are such nebulous ideals as "tolerance" and "progress" ever mentioned as "American ideals"...and for very good reason.

For one thing, those terms are nebulous and non-defined, and like "fairness" can be twisted to violate the tenets of Individualism and private property rights.

Since you brought it up, by comparing the Taliban to Christian Conservatives (a completely invidious comparison), as you might expect, I'd compare them to Liberals/Leftists, because every Leftist from Mao to Hitler to Stalin ALL sought State control over everything and every one. That is why EVERY Socialist, EVERY Liberal, "Progressive" and Leftist ultimately disdains the market-based economy. They seek always to err on the side of the "State managed economy" and ALWAYS to the detriment of ALL of society, especially the workers whom they claim to support.

In fact, ALL tyrants and despots everywhere espouse governmental ownership of its citisens, which runs counter to one of the primary principles of America's Founders (self-ownership/freedom FROM excess government) and of the American Conservative Movement which is based upon, and still espouses, every one of those Founding principles.

"If two people arguing on a blog don't even agree what the words "liberal" and "conservative" mean, how can any reliable poll data be collected when you ask people to categorize themselves as one or the other?" (Roger)

A good question Roger, BUT it proves little, except perhaps the intractability of the two people involved (in this case, BW & I).

Defining ideology is much like defining obscenity, "We all know it when we see it."

All I need do is hear Michael Moore, Al Gore, Howard Dean, or even Randi Rhodes or Al Franken speak and I know full well what an "American Liberal" stands for, and all BW would have to do is hear Newt Gingrich, or Pat Buchanan, or even a Hannity or a Limbaugh speak, to know what an "American Conservative" stands for.

In a nutshell, if you support punishment over therapy for violent felons, lower taxes, less governmental regulation and private property rights, including the unfettered use of deadly force (the right to bear arms) to protect your property, you're probably MORE Conservative than not.

If you support higher taxes, more government intrusion, see violent criminals as "victims of an unjust society," and see private property rights as "troublesome," you're probably MORE Liberal than not.

Despite Blue's anticipated objections, I think that's a pretty basic overview.

"Are you going to admit that there are both liberals *and* conservatives who * love their country * cherish liberty * support a market economy"

Barry,
Of course and I agree. In fact, you and I agree on many issues despite the fact that I am "liberal" and you "conservative (?)". It is usually the other way around. The far-right blames liberals for not being patriotic.

"Or are you going to demonize everyone who disagrees with you by casting him/her as an anti-American lunatic?"

I never questionned the patriotism of right-wingers, with one exception. The exception is Ann Coulter. I really think that her statements about the widows of 911 were extremely offensive and were essentially anti-American, in the sense that she was willing to say anything and show complete lack of respect for a group of women who suffered so much by the attack to our country, in order to sell her cheap books. That was antiamerican behavior, at least in my opinion.

JMK wrote:

" America was Founded on these key principles; (1) "Freedom" as Individual Liberty (self-ownership & personal responsibility), (2) Private Property Rights

I agree generally with you on that. These are principles that most liberals, democrats, republicans, and libertarians accept and respect.

"The far-right blames liberals for not being patriotic." (BW)

That's simply not true BW.

I've looked hard for examples of Conservatives assailing those opposed to the War in Iraq as "anti-American," and haven't found any.

Even those in the current administration have avoided doing that (not Cheney, not Rumsfeld, etc).

What I have seen is those on the Left who've called America "the world's biggest terrorist," and compared the current administration to Hitler's Third Reich (people like Moore, Rhodes,Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark) being called ANTI-American...which is far more serious than merely having their patriotism questioned.

I tend to agree that those folks are indeed guilty of sedition. I'd even include Jeremy Glick who was excoritaed a few years ago on Bill O'Reilly's show, in that group.

Jeremy Glick is the kid who lost his father in the WTC attacks and blamed American policies for those attacks. Yes, Glick's comments were, in my view, seditious and having lost a loved one doesn't excuse nor condone seditious, virtually Treasonous ("Givng aid & comfort to an enemy of the U.S.") speech.

Coulter is hardly a Conservative icon, the way Moore, Franken and Co. are Democratic ones.

In fact, her recent book hadn't sold very well until the recent manufacturted controversy over the so-called "Jersey Girls." In fact, I'd thankfully never heard of any of those New Jersey widows before, so, in a sense, both Coulter and themselves have benefitted greatly from this controversy.

Coulter's comments were cruel and heartless, but hardly ANTI-American.

You CAN despise various Americans and not be "ANTI-American," but if you revile this country or its policies, then you indeed are being anti-American.

"America was Founded on these key principles; (1) "Freedom" as Individual Liberty (self-ownership & personal responsibility), (2) Private Property Rights..." (JMK)
"America was Founded on these key principles; (1) "Freedom" as Individual Liberty (self-ownership & personal responsibility), (2) Private Property Rights..." (JMK)


"I agree generally with you on that. These are principles that most liberals, democrats, republicans, and libertarians accept and respect." (BW)


Well I know Conservatives and Libertarians do...and I'm sure some moderate Democrats do, as well, but the Left-wing (the Liberal-wing) of the Democratic Party certainly doesn't seem to.

After all, income is PRIVATE PROPERTY, so it stands to reason that income taxes should be either as low as reasonably possible (the sum TOTAL of federal, State & local income taxes should NEVER reach 40%), or better yet, be scrapped in favor of a Consumption-based tax, like the "Fair Tax" or the NRST.

Liberals also violate the concept of self-ownership by supporting such things as bicycle mandatory helmet laws and seat-belt laws, anti-smoking laws, so-called "sin-taxes" on cigarettes, sweets and fast food...ALL of those things posit that government "OWNS" its citizens.

How else could government have the right to impose such "for your own good" laws? The answer is that insurance companies and other commerical lobbies push for such things and the end result is that the citizenry, instead of owning & controlling its own servants (government), is owned and controlled by them.

I also noted that you left off entirely the third principle that America was founded upon - "(3) Very Limited and Localized Governance."

That principle is at least as important as the other two. In fact ALL of America's Founders feared a large centralized government because they knew from harsh personal experience that all such institutions ultimately oppress freedom of thought and speech, often freedom of movement and ultimately the sanctity of the private property of the people themselves.

That is why the Bill of Rights was written. All ten of those Amendments serve to limit and restrain government action, nothing else.

That third principle is also why the Founders eschewed a strong centralized government, opting instead for a "State's Rights model" of more localized governance, because they knew that more localized governance was more responsive to the people.

After all, income is PRIVATE PROPERTY, so it stands to reason that income taxes should be either as low as reasonably possible (the sum TOTAL of federal, State & local income taxes should NEVER reach 40%..

...Even if total expenditures to be funded add up to much more? I seem to recall when conservatives were pro-low taxes AND pro-low gov't spending.

Liberals also violate the concept of self-ownership by supporting such things as bicycle mandatory helmet laws and seat-belt laws, anti-smoking laws, so-called "sin-taxes" on cigarettes, sweets and fast food...ALL of those things posit that government "OWNS" its citizens...

Bike helmet and seat belt laws FOR KIDS I agree with, because too many parents are S-T-U-P-I-D asses; I see them every day. Taxes on cigs? They should be upped 10,000% as far as I am concerned. The only consumer product sold that, when used as directed, can kill you.

I also noted that you left off entirely the third principle that America was founded upon - "(3) Very Limited and Localized Governance"...

THAT went out the window years ago.

Fred, right now there is so much government waste, excess and duplication of services that revenues could be cut by 10 to 15 percent with no loss of essential services.

The problem with the Supply Side tax cuts has been that they've actually INCREASED revenues, which is sadly what they were designed to do! As income tax rates lower, down to about 22%, fewer people defer and shelter their income and revenues rise, just as revenues shrink as rates go up, as more people in the higher income brackets defer more of their income.

What we need is to CUT REVENUES and force government to do more with less.

And yes, just as there is interest rate usery, there is tax usery. Some would define it as any total over 50% of an individual's income (and I'd go along with that, so long as sales taxes, gas taxes, etc, were included), and that is equally egregious in my view.

It seems first you must cut the revenues to force government to cut its spending.

That's why I'd prefer to NRST or "Fair Tax," as it taxes consumption, rather than income - most truly wealthy people don't rely on income to generate wealth, yet everyone spends money and that's how taxes should be assessed.

As to localized and limited governance, we had no right to move away from that basic, founding principle without a two-thirds ratification by the States, which we never had. It could easilly be argued that any law that violates that precept is technically Constitutionally null & void.

cutting revenue as a way to force gov't to live within its means, etc. has been tried and tried--to no avail. They just go further and further into debt; good times today, pay for it tomorrow when these schmucks will be long gone...

Coulter's comments were cruel and heartless, but hardly ANTI-American.

We disagree. It is obvious that all Coulter cares about is to create "controversy" so she can sell her very cheap books. However, her comments also established that she does NOT care about the victims of 911. She is willing to attack the victims of 911 (families of people killed in the attack) in order to make money. If thats not anti-American, what is anti-American?

Its funny, I hadn't heard a peep from these 9-11 harlots in years--until Coulter pretended they had been Cindy Sheehan act-alikes in the days since 9-11. I read several papers and news sites every day and I have not seen anything regarding these "woulda divorced their husbands" girls at all.
I'd love to see someone from the feckless White House press corps ask Bush about the book, just for a laugh.

Actually, the last I had heard about them up 'til now was when Ted Rall dissed them in his cartoon. Didn't seem to make as much news as when Ann Coulter did it, for some reason.

"cutting revenue as a way to force gov't to live within its means, etc. has been tried and tried--to no avail. They just go further and further into debt; good times today, pay for it tomorrow when these schmucks will be long gone..." (Fred)
"cutting revenue as a way to force gov't to live within its means, etc. has been tried and tried--to no avail. They just go further and further into debt; good times today, pay for it tomorrow when these schmucks will be long gone..." (Fred)


Yes the government is filled with spendthrifts.

If only we had an entire Congress filled with Ron Paul's.

Sure, they'd probably have us in a purely defensive standpoint vis-a-vis the war on terror, but we'd be saving a ton with a stripped down government.

There are few things we really depend on government for, epseciallyu the federal government - a criminal justice system, national defense, regulating interstate sommerce, minting and coining money, etc.

They sure are doing a lot of superfluous stuff these days.

yeah, Rep Paul is making some good sense these days..........unless you're a big fan of federal financing of aquacultural tomato farms in Alaska or shrimp farms in Ohio. Or a public swimming pool in California.

"We disagree. It is obvious that all Coulter cares about is to create "controversy" so she can sell her very cheap books. However, her comments also established that she does NOT care about the victims of 911. She is willing to attack the victims of 911 (families of people killed in the attack) in order to make money. If thats not anti-American, what is anti-American?" (BW)
"We disagree. It is obvious that all Coulter cares about is to create "controversy" so she can sell her very cheap books. However, her comments also established that she does NOT care about the victims of 911. She is willing to attack the victims of 911 (families of people killed in the attack) in order to make money. If thats not anti-American, what is anti-American?" (BW)


OK, so she's a marketing genius.

That, in and of itself, is no reason to hate her.

Of course she revels in controversy, so does Al Franken, Ted Rall and a host of others across the political spectrum (apparently Al & Ted just aren't as good at it)...nothing wrong with that.

And status as a 9/11 survivor, widow, or family member of one lost does NOT (1) make one an expert on national defense or geo-politics or (2) give one some greater moral standing from which to speak.

I've never heard of these women before and probably disagree with them, so it seems. I DID hear of Jeremy Glick and found his statements to Bill O'Reilly to be seditious.

More than anything else, I'm disappointed that this controversy generated such legs.

It's like the Catholic Church blasting The DaVinci Code - best thing that ever happened to a bad movie...same thing here. Ironically the Liberals are complicit in selling Ann Coulter's books.

To date, I have none.

"OK, so she's a marketing genius.

Yes. She is, but she also anti-American. She is an anti-American marketing genius.

Again, reviling specific Americans doesn't qualify you as "anti-American."

Many Liberals revile Conservatives and vice versa, but that doesn't make them anti-American.

Despising America's policies at home and/or abroad can make one anti-American, but you can despise Al Sharpton, or Pat Robertson, or Dennis Kucinich, or Tom DeLay, or even some of those who lost family on 9/11 and not be "anti-American."

I knew at least fifty of the firefighters killed that day...many of them close friends...and people can certainly dislike, disparage and disagree with me without being "anti-American."

Ann Coulter is an acerbic, often meanspirited writer, but she's also really good at marketing. She went from a relatively obscure historian to a notorious bomb thrower.

Good for her...I bet it's nice work...if you can get it.

"but you can despise ..............................even some of those who lost family on 9/11 and not be "anti-American."

Sorry, you can not. On 9/11 the country was attacked and innocent people got killed. For anyone (especially someone evil-spirited like Ann Coulter) to attack the victims and families, not only its nauseating, but its strongly anti-American and shows deep hatred for the victims and the country, as I previously wrote here. What makes it so anti-American is her motive (to sell cheap books and make money). No American who loves his/her country would ever do this.