I was watching one of the early Republican debates a few months ago. The candidates were asked about what they thought George Bush's biggest mistake had been as president. Tom Tancredo - who has since dropped out of the race - gave the shortest, yet most interesting answer. He said that George Bush had campaigned as a conservative & governed like a liberal. As I pondered Tancredo's response, I began to think about what the hallmarks of conservatism & liberalism are:
Conservatism - Small government; less taxation; more personal freedom; more personal responsibility; a constructionist view of the Constitution & a cautious attitude when dealing with foreign affairs.
Liberalism - Big government; high taxation; less personal freedom; less personal responsibility (i.e. government taking care of people from the cradle to the grave); viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing document & an interventionist attitude when dealing with foreign affairs.
The United States was involved in four major conflicts during the 20th Century (World Wars I & II, Korea & Vietnam). It's interesting to note that liberals were occupying the White House when America's involvement in each conflict began (Wilson, FDR, Truman & Kennedy). It seems that George Bush took a page from their book when it came to Iraq. You may have seen footage of a speech Bush gave back in 1999 when he was still governor of Texas & considering a run for president. He said America shouldn't be the policeman for the world, & that we should play a less prominent role on the world stage. And look where we are today!!!!
Since 9/11, George Bush has overseen the most massive expansion of our government since Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." The Department of Homeland Security is an abomination. Though George Bush did cut taxes shortly after taking office in 2001, he failed to reign in government spending & the deficit ballooned. And he was working with a Republican Congress!!!
If Bush truly wanted to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil, he'd secure our borders & seaports. He would also demand that tighter restrictions be placed on those seeking to enter our country. Instead, he gave us the Patriot Act & a domestic spying program, which are little more than assaults on our personal freedoms. Besides, our president takes his marching orders from the Mexican government, & they wouldn't like it if we actually secured our southern border. How would Mexico export their poverty if we did that???!!! Bush also supported the McCain/Kennedy amnesty legislation for illegal immigrants.
It appears that Bush's two appointments to the Supreme Court are conservatives, but their long-term impact remains to be seen. It is expected that there will soon be vacancies on the court, & if a liberal Democrat is elected president in '08, justices Alito & Roberts could be marginalized.
When you look at George Bush's track record, you could make the case for calling him a liberal. Maybe Tom Tancredo was right.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
President Bush is a moderate. If not for the fact that the DNC convinced the left that he is the antichrist, many democrats would have gladly accepted him and even voted for him. He is soft on border control and illegal immigration, he is big on education spending (though he does require that schools actually educate... crazy huh?)... He has no problem bowing to the enviro-weenies, as with the recent bill that requires car manufacturers to have a required minimum average mileage for their car lines.
In comparison to the people he ran against... Al "I invented the Internet" Gore and John "I served in Vietnam then slandered my fellow troops" Kerry, President Bush is indeed a conservative...
but on an actual scale... nah, not as much. I'd put him as a moderate.
Duncan Hunter would be a Conservative. Rudy is a liberal. (In fact, I was looking at his gun control history and statements, comparing them to Joseph Liberman.... and Liberman came out as more conservative on gun rights.), Huckabee is a moderate. Romney is a moderate. Thompson is a conservative, but isn't fighting hard. McCain is a liberal.
This next election will be a socialist (either hillary or obama or edwards) against a liberal/moderate (whoever the Republicans put up)
Bull. Shit. I'm currently in one of our great Institutions of Learning and I don't find myself learning anything I couldn't teach myself.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Like any large problem that's been solved in the past, there is a good plan that gets mucked up by the Left. He backed a plan that did indeed work in his state with some measured success. However, the NEA and DNC hate anything that might make schools accountable. Especially if the person who suggests it has an R after their name.
NCLB does, indeed, work. However, the NEA and the DNC work hard to demonize it and some even go so far as to call it racist, others say that it only serves to hurt the poor. (Utter rubbish... the poor need education to pull themselves out of poverty.... pumping in millions of dollars a year and NOT yielding results is what hurts the poor) As such, its effectiveness was destroyed, and the end result is more red tape, more wasted money, but no real change in the level of education of our students.
The Unions have a strong hold on education. no one really serves as a 'checks and balance' measure against the unions, so they more or less do as they see fit.
After all.... it is for the children.
Oh no no no no. Don't blame this shit on the left or the right.
The problem comes when we feel that it is the federal governments responsiblity to have anything to do with schools and education. The school system should be and was left typically to the states. NCLB is not only illegal in that it is interfering with powers left to the state, but it is stupid because all it has done is lower the bar to make stupid children seem smarter.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
It is the Left that is always pushing for a more intrusive federal government.
That said, as schools get federal funding as well as state funding, the Federal Government reserves the right to place conditions on its funding. If a school does not meet the conditions, the federal funding is removed.
I'm not a fan of federal funding for schools, but I think that if the federal government is going to help fund them, that it is not unreasonable that they place conditions on that funding.
What you're describing, however, is the work of the NEA. The purpose of NCLB is to set a realistic bar and have children educated to reach it. However, the NEA's lobby has allowed for the bar to instead be set in such a way that the red tape is kept in check and that teachers are not held as accountable as their private school counterparts.
Not only do the teachers still have near-guarenteed job security despite poor performance (something private school teachers do not have) but they also have VERY high wages. (recent studies have shown that, apart from doctors and lawyes, teachers are some of the highest paid people per hour worked. Don't forget that they get nearly 3 months off in the summer, plus time off in the fall winter and spring breaks. Compare that to the 2 weeks of vacation and 5 to10 holidays that a private sector business allows.)
I have no problem with teachers wanting to be paid more. I think nearly everyone wants to be paid more (Except for those who would be pushed into a higher tax bracket, thanks to liberal's tax laws)... however, I greatly take issue with the myth that public school teachers are 'underpaid'. I've head the guilt-trips about how some teachers are forced... forced, I say!... to take second jobs in the summer, just to make ends meet!
I don't know about you, but I have to work year round to make ends meet... why shouldn't everyone? If you're not able to live on a budget based on the pay you get, your options are reduce your spending or increase your earnings.
Economics 101.
The "Left" pushes for me personal freedoms and the "Right" pushes for more economic freedoms...or did. The line is so blurred now that it isn't even funny.
The left does not push for personal freedom.
Universal Healthcare is not personal freedom, it is dependence upon government.
Public education is not personal freedom, it is dependence upon government.
large taxes is not personal freedom, it is dependence upon government.
Anti-Smoking laws are not personal freedom, it is dependence upon government.
etc. etc. etc.
Remember that on the left, you find Socialism and Communism.. Where you are wholly dependent upon the government.
While, yes, the left was known for a more intrusive government, and still are, the right isn't doing much better. The right wants to build a nation based around their religion of choice: Christianity. Convert or die, bitches.
And no, the NCLB act has not set a reasonable bar. They've set a bar that any student with a second grade education SHOULD be able to reach. This is not, however, the case. Students can graduate HIGH SCHOOL and still not know how to read.
And I never said teachers were underpaid. They are, but they're not getting stiffed. I know what a couple of my teachers make and it's not a bad living if you're on your own. It's now that they're being expected to teach to the dumbest while leaving the smartest to struggle, leaving us with a good balance of educated-idiots. As I've said a few times in the past, there is nothing worse than knowledge for a stupid person. Yes, I do support eugenics to some degree.
When it comes right down to it, any government that is requiring certain quotas be met before it will offer funding is terrible and tyranical. Either give all schools the same funding or don't do it at all. The funding for schools should be left to the states. My children will be home schooled to my standards.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Do not confuse "Republican" with "Right"
Too many republicans are moderates. Our President is a moderate.
Eh.... no it doesn't. No matter how many times people say that. No, it doesn't.
Why should the federal government be giving money to schools that do a BAD job? If you're at a restaurant and they screw up your order, undercook it, and spit on it, then your waiter/ess tells you to piss off when you complain, do you think you have a requirement to pay them and leave a big tip?
No, you walk away and tell them why.
If the PRIVATE sector has the right to NOT fund things based on poor performance, than why should we expect differently from the government? The Government is not a handout, like some grandfather figures, always reaching into his pocket to pull out some change for the grandkids when he visits. It is YOUR money and MY money... do you really support throwing more money at things that don't work?
And, as for the bar being set 'too low' . . . I happen to agree. I also happen to blame the DNC and the NEA and liberalism in general.
The truth is, there are no real conservatives in the running for 08. We'll choose between a socialist and a liberal/moderate.
There is no one representing the Right.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
Agreed, after voting for Bush twice, he is a moderate liberal. Gore and Kerry were not liberals but crazy lefty's that made Bush look conservative.
Bush massively spent, and rarely vetoed bills when Republicans controlled Congress.
On the plus side he actually sent me an extra check when he first cut taxes. No other President that I know of did that. Not even liberal ones.
Because he has spent so much, even beyond the War on Terror, he cannot be called moderate but liberal. He left our borders open as well as you mention.
The line between conservative and liberal will be so clear in this years race for the Presidency. This time choice will be clear.
You have used definitions for ``conservative`` and ``liberal`` directly out of the neoConservative playbook.
The words `liberal` and `conservative` have become cliches in the United States. But I do notice that the people who call themselves `conservative` tend to vote in legislators, locally and federally, who promote policies that are largely what you have labeled as `liberal,` and those who are largely labeled `liberal` are often more likely to promote some of the policies that you have referred to as `conservative.`
For example, more personal freedom... Is it conservatives or liberals who have pushed in some Southern towns to make baggy pants illegal?. Who lobbied the FCC to fine a broadcaster $750,000 for showing Janet Jackson`s breast rather than letting the free market decide whether it was okay? Who successfully lobbied 40% of Alabama voters to vote in 2000 for interracial marriages to be illegal and got even more behind legislative attacks on same sex married couples` freedom to marry? Who fought to keep `Sodomy Laws,` which meant in some states that, for example, any woman having oral sex with her husband could be arrested and jailed for years? Who has succeeded in making sex toys illegal in Alabama? Were these conservatives or liberals? Generally, they call themselves conservatives. To call them all `liberals` kind of turns the classic definition of the word on its head, since to be liberal means to be open to change in more modern directions.
1. Cities that have sought to 'ban' baggy pants are cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Shreveport, and others are very liberal towns, despite the condition of the state as a whole. In such cities and towns, even the "Republicans" are liberal. So that point of yours doesn't stick.
2.) It is not a conservative ideal to allow public airwaves to show nudity or other vile behavior during 'prime time' television. lewd behavior in public is always supported and defended by the Leftists, not the conservatives, no matter how often you suggest otherwise. It is not the Conservative that suggest that nudity in public is 'free speech' . . . yet you find such acts in San Francisco and other parts of California. Known liberal hotbeds.
3.) The removal of the ban on interracial marriage was supported by both Demcorats and Republicans alike. The biggest opponent of the bill was the Southern Party in Alabama, which is a front for white supramists. however, the bill was not really needed, as people in Alabama could marry if they were members of different races, despite the existing law.
4.) Please list the states and applicable code that shows a punishment of 'a few years' in jail for oral sex. I'd hate to suggest that you are stretching the truth... but I think you are. In Oklahoma it is against the law to engage in oral sex. You really think it doesn't happen? (Also keep in mind that Oklahoma STATE government is actually pretty Blue. They wouldn't run into any voting issues if they chose to get rid of such a law, but the democrats do not. This also ruins your idea that us conservatives are actually the liberal ones in your upside-down world)
5.) I do know that such toys are illegal in Alabama, but at work I am not going to search google for such a thing to research it much.
6.)
I do tend to refer to such people as socialists, communists, leftists or general scum. Liberal is, indeed, a term stolen to make the 'conservatives' look old-fashioned and the liberals look new and hip. Just as the left does now, trying to call themselves 'progressive'.
Greg, when I mentioned personal freedoms, I wasn't thinking about sex toys or gay marriage or Janet Jackson's nipple. I was thinking about freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble peacefully, the right to vote & the right to face an accuser in a court of law. You know, the important freedoms. However, if you feel your freedoms are being trampled on because you don't have access to sex toys, gay marriage, baggy pants, oral sex & Janet Jackson's nipple, then by all means, contact the ACLU & ask them to sue the government on your behalf. I'm sure they'll take your case. Then again, the ACLU might be too busy suing some poor town for trying to pass anti-illegal immigration laws.
Heh. I knew I liked you for a reason.
It is, indeed, an issue of so much freedom that we complain about things like that.
``...when I mentioned personal freedoms, I wasn't thinking about..... I was thinking about ... the important freedoms. However, if you feel your freedoms are being trampled on...``
I find your comment ironic enough to be kind of amusing. In essence, freedom seems to have limits to you that do not necessarily seem to extend beyond anything you personally want to do. It doesn`t matter whether I personally want to use sex toys or wear baggy pants. In fact, I don`t own either of those. But I do not want my government to be the fashion police or to worry about how some woman achieves orgasm. I don`t smoke drugs but I don`t care if others do in their own homes. I don`t use certain swear words that I find offensive, but I don`t want an intrusive government to fine someone else who uses them when speaking on TV.
Your comment reminds me of some fundamentalist Muslims I knew who said they supported rights and freedoms for women. The right to drive a car? Well, no, women shouldn`t drive. The right to walk down the street? Well, no, not without a male escort. The right to listen to music? Well, not if it`s not religious. The right to vote? Well, that isn`t a woman`s duty, so no. They seemed to think they supported the ``important`` freedoms, like, err... the right to breathe maybe?
I want small government that allows equal rights and doesn`t intrude into our personal lives, and I don`t care if someone else`s personal choices, sex lives, fashion choices or style of speech are different from my own. Without all the little freedoms not being intruded upon by the government , I don`t see how there`s really much freedom to speak of.
So Greg, what you're saying is that anyone who has a moral objection to some of the behaviors you described isn't free to speak up or have a hand in shaping public policy? They should have to accept these things, and to do otherwise represents a denial of freedom? Should Americans with strong religious convictions remain silent & in the background so that gays can be "free" to get married? Do I understand you correctly Greg?
Towns across this country have had laws against certain types of sex on the books for decades. Have these laws had an impact on people's freedom? Hardly, because they aren't enforced. The only way you could be charged with breaking one of these anti-sex laws is if the person you were committing the act with keeled over (or, if you walked into a police station & confessed to committing the act, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to do that). Fireworks were illegal in the town I grew up in. And yet, there were people setting of fireworks all over my neighborhood around the 4th of July. Did the cops show up & arrest everyone with fireworks? Hell no. However, maybe you should make it your mission in life to go from town to town & see to it that these laws are taken off the books so that people's freedoms aren't infringed upon.
Your comparison of me to Islamic fundamentalists was very amusing. I was responding to your comments about a lack of access to sex toys, sodomy, & Janet Jackson's nipple, & you interpreted that as a denial of women's rights. That's quite a leap there, isn't it? Then again, I guess you're "free" to do that, now aren't you? For the record, I'm all for women being able to vote, drive, breathe & have orgasms.
By the way, if I were an Islamic fundamentalist, I wouldn't be sitting here typing a response to your comments. I'd be trying to find you so that I could cut your head off, a la Nick Berg. Talk about a guy who lost his freedoms..........
"Should Americans with strong religious convictions remain silent & in the background so that gays can be "free" to get married?"
If they believe in living in a free country, then not only should they not remain silent, but they should openly support freedom for others. Likewise, a person in Saudi Arabia who has strong convictions against Catholicism can, if he believes in freedom, support the right of Catholics to have rosary beads and Bibles in their homes. If he doesn't support their rights to do differently that he does and be treated the same by his government, then he really doesn't believe in freedom.
"Towns across this country have had laws against certain types of sex on the books for decades. Have these laws had an impact on people's freedom?"
Definitely they have, especially before the Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003. Michael Bowers was imprisoned for consensual oral sex with another adult in his own home in 1986. Genarlow Wilson, a black 17 year old boy, was given a 10-year prison sentence in Georgia for consensual oral sex with a girl two years younger in 2004 and was only released about 10 weeks ago. Other cases before Lawrence v.Texas involved women using the law to get revenge on a husband or boyfriend by admitting that they had oral sex. Until Lawrence v. Texas, the threat that was held over people's heads in Idaho was as much as life imprisonment (!) for something as common as someone having oral sex with her husband. Sex laws were commonly applied in the South and Midwest unevenly to attack the freedoms of black and/or gay people and were sometimes used by legislators as justification to deny gay people unrelated rights.
"Your comparison of me to Islamic fundamentalists..."
Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining to you exactly what aspect of your argument I was comparing. It was't really a comparison to your concept of women's rights in particular. My comment was about this idea that "I support freedoms" but the person really doesn't give a hoot about freedoms if it involves anything that doesn't involve something he likes to do or to see others do.
I don't wear hats or have any green shirts. But would I support the government arresting people who wear hats or green shirts? No! Because I do support freedom. The baggy pants ordinances are about the most ridiculous infringements on anyone's basic freedoms that I've ever heard of, and flirt with the same mentality as the Middle eastern fashion police. And it doesn't matter that I don't have any baggy pants, because I don't really live in a free country if my country doesn't allow freedom to others.