Liberals are "destroyers of individual rights"? Do you mean, for example the right to vote and the right to keep medical decisions between the doctor and patient (ultrasound legislation), etc.? Those are unprecedented attacks purely by conservatives and their representatives. That said, radicalism begets radicalism.

ref the "right to vote", conservatives simply want to have the right to vote once, not multiple times as Acorn and other lib organizations knowingly have been doing. Anyone can have an Ohio ID, alternative to a drivers license; even banana republics as well as our cultural brethern in Europe have National ID's, it is simply our twisted sense of the individual rights that blocks common sense here.

Already with the comments we see the real problem: Extremists on both sides are what's wrong with America today. Right-wingers say, "Let the market decide," so the market decided to cheat millions of Americans out of their homes and their life savings so that the 1% can buy more yachts. Left-wingers say, "Let the government help," Nothing scarier than, "We're the government and we're here to help."
We need to figure out how to help impoverished children without supplying drug money to their parents, how to help the elderly without pumping tax dollars to millionaires, how to be a nation that can discuss its differences without sounding like opposing sides arming for a war. Our health care system is a mess, but Republicans would rather kill everything in it than admit that ANYTHING in Obamacare is good. The new law limits donut-hole brand-name drug costs to 50% for insurance company's customers, so the insurance companies increased my PRE-donut-hot co-pay FIVEfold to get the money, and more, before I hit the donut hole. Politicians can't out-smart businesses. We can't out-smart the politicians, who use buzzwords to press our buttons so that we lash out in their favor even when it harms US. I love America. But it no longer is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a land owned by the 1% with their boatloads of money that can buy politicians and put loopholes into the laws that bring them $1,000 for every $10 they spend to purchase power.

Lets get away from labels and start working on solving problems and making the world a better place. Fighting isn't getting much done. Suggestion: Set some priorities, agree on a respectful system of fact finding, let people understand why a process is the best plan then actually "Get er done" Who would have thought Larry the Cable Guy would have the perfect mantra.

Liberals tend to think they are more "intelligent" than conservatives. This is another example of how they are not.

Liberals tend to believe they are more 'intelligent" than the rest of us. This is another example of why they are not.

This article is illustrative of how Liberals don't understand Conservatives and Conservatism. They create strawman arguments about Conservatives and then knock them down. One of the basic differences between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservatives believe in the power of the individual and the Liberal believes in the power of government. If you wish to know more about Conservatism read my blog at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/

You can`t fool me---this letter was Ghost Written by Barbara Striesand---

Mr. Dewey,
thank you, keep it up. The absolute disdain and arrogance towards Conservatives represented by your piece illustrates that you and you fellow Liberal extremists have fallen so far out of touch with real people that we will simply stop trying to persuade you. We will just do nationally what we did on a state level here in Ohio, vote you completely out of all positions of power.

What did people with uninformed opinions do before the internet?

Okay, analyze this.
I am a liberal with very strong religious (Protestant) ties.
When did the radical, right wing-nuts get the idea that they are the only religious people on earth? Isn't that also the claim of Muslims? Sorry if you find "spelling" errors, did not spellcheck.

"Second: when a person believes that Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs 6000 years ago or believe in the Rapture they are in stage “permanent la la land”. So there is no hope of changing the Fundamentalists. Isolate them. Make them impotent as soon and often as possible.

Third: every liberal in every communication venue relentlessly educate. A clear concise barrage of logic and knowledge, in particular from the social science, will allow the conservative to assist in flourishing the species from the position of “the loyal opposition.""

HA! This is an April Fool's joke, right? Do you honestly believe that conservatives are in la-la-land and liberals are relentless educators? Please. Spare me. I profess to be neither but the simple fact that you, as a liberal, are pointing the proverbial finger in this direction tells anyone with a "logical" brain that this is reverse bigotry. Don't agree? Don't like their stance? Make fun and call names. Very grown up and "liberal" of you.

Dear Callie,
I wrote that Fundies are in la la land for the harm they are doing to conservatives and liberals. Reverse bigotry by logic means no bigotry. Bigotry is based on opinons. It is not an opinion that those who believe and teach their kids that people (mythocal or actural) rode on dinosaurs are objectivly wrong. And I said we need to stop making fun of the conservatives, liberals need to listen to them.

“One is they don’t want to loose what they have.”
*lose

“Second, conservatives have a propensity for simplicity.They can not grasp complex causes or effects.”
*space between sentences

“...conservatives have lower IQ then liberals only deepen the morass.”
*than

“...as often as you can, when ever you can.”
*whenever

“Disregard the left behinds.”
*left-behinds

“...woman can vote...”
*women

Hey everyone. Let's try to be nice to each other, and stick to the topics. No personal attacks, please.

My own conservatism is rooted in Thomas Jefferson's idea that the best government is the least government. It gets worse... I'm agnostic too. I'm guessing that discussing large groups of beliefs under global labels is not an effective way to start dialogue. Although it is probably an effective way to prevent a third party (or in my case a second party since I see no difference between the two we've got).

Colin McEwen,

How in the world do you allow a divisive piece like this (errors and all) to post on your site? Wow!

Cultures rise and fall over time, just like individuals. Our culture went rotten years ago, and we are seeing the fallout now in terms of tribal identification and stagnation of our arts and politics. Everything is a sequel, every argrument a tired out set of cliche's about hippies and brownshirts. Our way of life is not pleasing to a great majority of us, but that is the normal human state of affairs. It may take a civil war or strong outside influence to restore the culture- or it may be settling in for an unstoppable decline. Right v. Left has little meaning anymore: now its authority v. liberty, and you have people on both of the old sides looking for more of one than the other.

I'm not sure who I am more embarrassed for; the person who wrote this letter or the people responding to his letter. The problem with blogs isn't that anyone can write anything, it's people who read them believe what this person is saying. Half of what people write in blogs is made up.

While I would *prefer* to read well writtten, grmamitically correct prose, the lack of these does *not* disqualify a voice from being heard.

Maybe it's the message or messenger that some people would rather not have to deal with?

I am going to address three points brought up by James Thomas:
1. Lower IQ: Both a recent Harvard study and an English U. 30 year study found as a whole conservative children have lower IQ’s and this pattern carries into the adult life. My whole essay was liberals need tolerance of conservatives not hate.
2. The best example of conservatives being “conceptually challenged” is W. F. Buckley Jr. statement that McCarty was a needed voice at the time because no one else was nationalizing the menace of communism. He regretted the harm but it was needed. Any social scientist will tell you there is no way this society could become communistic it is more likely to become fascist. He could not complete the whole concept.

3. …cannot grasp complex causes or effects: Conservatives want smaller or no government. Every successful society has a strong government. The more people in a society the bigger the government has to be. It is the rural urban continuum. It is simple arithmetic. The best example is traffic laws. In a hamlet no traffic laws, In Los Angeles lots of laws, with a bigger government to take care of all the complexities. Also the basic premise of Communism is no government except for police and military, and that is what conservatives in the US are also advocating. No hate just facts.

Let me get this straight. A man posts a 620 word 8th grade reading level article filled with spelling and grammatical errors which is supposed to basically declare his brilliants to the world. Then he insults everyone that doesn’t conform to his views as by defining them as stupid. Dose he not even know how to use spelling and grammar check in Microsoft Word? This is just too funny. Maybe I’ll we take him seriously when I stop laughing.

when going to the Liberal National Party USA website this section shows their vision of the future SOCIOLOGY AS LIBERALISM ....... not to mention on the rules they have for PARENTAGE:

Procreators taxed extra for every child.
Procreator’s progressive tax on children after the first child.
Children can be raised other than by the traditional family

when people are taught that that the government will provide for them they become idle ...then when so many people become idle that the government becomes stagnant ...then when the government becomes stagnant they can no longer provide for the people ....and when the people are no longer provided for the people there is unrest ....and when there is unrest people suffer .....so no your way has always failed, and will continue to fail ...this is the United States and we are the people we have the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail ...but only in failure do you see who you really are, either the person who says let’s try this again...or the person who says woo-asme, somebody feed me because I give up! And Keith those are the people they you and your kind pray on

The Downfall of Democracy:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to dependence
From dependency back to bondage
(unknown as to true author)

Actually, I don't think those historical 'forms' of government you refer to reflect true democracies. That which I posted more or less represents for me where this nation come from and the direction I can see our Republic heading. I think both liberals and conservatives are driving us in the direction of dependence and ultimately, if not literal bondage, massive government control of our lives and less personal liberty.

@ Garry Kanter: Thanks. I think you are saying that requiring ID to register and vote is voter suppression? Then, when Texas requires photo ID to acquire a fishing license, if they don't have a photo ID, is that the state of Texas' attempt to suppress fishing?
(in re: Zero tolerance)

@Tom: LOL!

@Keith: Join the crowd. Although I am not a liberal, I too have to acknowledge my lack of superman traits etc. I just want the USA to get back on track fiscally and for congress quit creating 80,000 pages of new regulations every week. That type of output can bode ill for our liberties. Its dems and repubs, equally responsible. Instead of painting each group as despicable...we need to join together and deal with real truths, then fix what needs to be fixed. We don't need to cook up situations for incubating hate. We need to be strong and continue the lead the world as an example of democracy and freedom. We have had a great deal more immigrants from the continent of Africa than were ever brought over on all the slave ships. And they chose to come here. We are a beacon of freedom and we need to stay that way.

Steve Sweetnich wrote on 10 April:
To all the misguided Liberals...from Webster's...
Classical liberalism
To Steve: A very good example of a conservative reply. There are glaring faults. First: My unabridged Webster’s Dictionary does not have Classic Liberalism listed. Then I tried the Webster on the internet, it did not have the word. In order to support conservative issues they have to make up sources and facts.
Second: There is no classic liberalism. There is liberalism through the ages. Conservatives hug today what liberals got yesterday. Liberalism is on a continuum. What was liberal 400 years ago (the age where our constitution was drawn) may not be liberal today. What was liberal behavior 400 years ago may be conservative today. We liberals evolve. We keep the principles but change the implementations. So the conservatives are going back 250 years and wishing for the good old days. 250 years ago conservatives were trying to keep Kingship and one family rule.
Third: Steve goes on to make up things like “… substitution of government for God”. Of course he can’t find any source for that.
Fourth: just parroting.
And Fifth: When all else fails just throw as many epitaphs at the individual hoping for what I do not know. Maybe it is just a simple unimaginative vent.

All I know is how today's liberals present themselves today. All I know about myself is this nation is in serious debt and the economy is horrible and the stock market dropped major today and tho I own no stock, all this concerns me. I know I am more libertarian than conservative. The only laws I want imposed are those that say you cannot harm anyone or their property. Tax enough to provide civil protections, education, and a military to protect the USA. Then you go about your business and I will go about mine.

@ tom m: Oh yes, of course...how could I forget that! We need to have a lunch checker at the door of each classroom as the student enters each morning...we must tax enough to provide $ for the official who does the checking. LOL!

The list of these 'special' rules, regulations and laws could go on an on. Unfortunately, in reality...it does.

The real insidious part of Michelle Obama's lunch police is the message they are sending to the children. And that message is the same as it was in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes. The message is to trust the state over your parents. We have slowly being erroding parental rights in this country in favor of giving the government more control.

It is offensive for the government to erode parent's rights in favor of the government deciding what your children should eat, learn, whether or not they should play on Jungle Jim's (now variously ruled to be unsafe for playgrounds), what words should be in songs they sing, whether or not they can 'hug', at what age to learn about sex and sexual preferences.....the list goes on and on!

There are wise rules and regulations. But are there enough situations to call for 80,000 pages of new rules and regulations out of Washington each week?

As to guns...I own a 22 rifle. I have used it to scare (not kill) coyotes away from my free range ducks and geese. I have shot and killed two cotton mouth snakes in my front yard. I have never killed the rat snakes coiled in my nesting boxes partaking of my fresh hen eggs.

However, down the road from me, a gentleman who runs a bed and breakfast and restaurant was murdered in his bed for credit cards, cash and a pick up truck. An elderly couple in a nearby town was murdered in their home one evening because the shooter wanted their truck.

I can tell you if someone was breaking into my house coming up the stairs in the night, I would not hesitate to fire off my rifle. The only problem is I keep it over my fireplace downstairs.

Owning guns is a responsibility that should be taken seriously. I am not sure what you mean by ridding ourselves of guns. I can tell you that the first time I held my rifle (over 20 years ago) to scare the coyote off one of my pastures, he sat there right before my eyes....I was shaking. I had never held a gun before.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
- Ben Stein

Nothing like a good conversation { dog fight} debating the issues folks. There are so many issues to discuss that this could be the forum for intelligen conversation.

Intelligent***- oops sorry for the spelling error.

@ Gary Kanter: From your last comment, it appears that you are actually comfortable with 'suppression' as long as it is something you do not deem as important. To carry this thesis to is logical end, you are comfortable with suppression depending on its relevance to you.

The state suppresses someone when they require drivers lic., passport, birth cert., marriage lic., not to mention fishing lic. Entities such as banks, grocery stores and cash checking facilities carry out suppression when they require ID to cash a pay check or make a purchase by check. Schools carry out suppression in requiring ID's. As we look at this list, some areas are more important than others. Using ID's is very fundamental to our daily lives for access to our money, travel and attending school.

Therefore your postulation that requiring ID's is disenfranchisement (depending on their 'importance') is not rational and is based in ideology, not fact nor truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw

Take a look at this.

Steve:

It is really hard to say in a few words what could be a book. In these exchanges I believe bloggers have a basic understanding and knowledge of group-ways. And what has actually been historically manifested. But, they don’t. Case in point: Classic Liberalism. That label did not appear until the late 70’s. It was invented because the conservatives wanted to couch a group-way 200 years old as noble, without giving modern liberal group-ways legitimacy. And just proves the adage that conservatives hug today what liberals got yesterday. What would you call the liberalism of: Pedicles, Salomon or Akhenaten?

The rest of your post is an addlepated regurgitation of mythical beliefs. I would suggest some academic study in Poly Sci, History and Sociology, and then we might have a more reasonable dialog.

@ Kanter: "Do you understand why one is so much more important than the other, and any attempts to disenfranchise must be watched carefully."

I was addressing this above comment of YOURS which pertains to the requirement of ID for voting. That requiring ID is an attempt to disenfranchise, thus suppress voting.

If requiring ID in order to vote is an attempt to disenfranchise...thus suppression...then the Federal Government, the State and private entities are guilty of practicing 'suppression' every day of our lives. The right to vote is of utmost importance. As is cashing your pay check in order to feed your family. These 'rights' are so important, they must all be protected. When someone uses your driving lic number and destroys your credit...you are in a fix. Also, to the fraudulence of someone voting in your name or your dead neighbor's name, that can lead to elections being 'fixed'. And...we have on record, prosecutions both in voter fraud and credit fraud. Would you agree that there is equivalency to a degree as to the importance of you being you when cashing a check OR voting?

I have read every comment, I find very little worth comment---thank you for your kind attention!

Again with the Straw Man, refuting things I did not say or imply.

And ignoring the point about the ridiculousness of your equating a Texas fishing license to the Constitutional right to vote.

Unless you reply to what I actually posted, I will not respond to your related posts.

That's just the way I roll.

Steve: What I say and what you say I said do not match. I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose to make points or you are skimming over what I wrote. You are making straw dogs then beating them up.

Second what you do read correctly is misunderstood. My guess is you have never been at a State University attending multiple classes in political science, History or Sociology.

Not to be pedantic but maybe you should do some investigation through noted authors. Read some books not just blogs, pundits, and ideologues. We all lack knowledge of some sort or another. It is not a crime to not know. The crime is to stop thinking and stop learning.

I knew you were lacking in significant knowledge when you put FDR in the same context as Mussolini. Also think hard on this one concept. What liberals tout today will be what conservatives hug tomorrow. Good luck.

Dewey..first of all,you are pedantic,and amazingly uniformed for such a self proclaimed scholar. Again you guess wrong: my academic credentials are well intact thank you very much.
I grow weary of continually educating you on the reality of history. You offer nothing on the other hand, than obtuse references to everyone's need to read whatever it was that started you on your misguided political philosophical journey.
Let' start with the similarities between pre WWII socio-economic policies of FDR, Mussolini and Hitler. Read it and weep. They are twins.
http://reason.com/archives/2007/09/28/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism.
or
I will save you the effort: .
From http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1228, the author writes:
"Many of Roosevelt's ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.”
Throughout the discussion you have exhibited a profound misunderstanding of the history of Liberalism, its evolution into Progressivism and a sinister view of capitalism and the Right, obviously poisoned by some narrow minded and factually incorrect readings from some long ago anarchist.
You sir are the one who needs to open his mind and embrace the reality of world history.

From C. Krauthammer:
Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so> Only liberals are a credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you are not a liberal but if you are a liberal, of course you probably agree with liberal views.

This makes liberals nearly impervious to any information or facts that undermine their beliefs.

all of these arguments are fun,but the arbiter is the u s constitution and whats wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION---Is it perfect---of course not ---will it suffice---certainly, at least for now--- maybe we`ll look at it in 2 or 3 hundred years--maybe not---Victor

Poor Dewey. You have lost all credibility in this argument, as has your distorted political view of history. Despite dozens of references, you deny the obvious. With regard to Liberalism (Progressivism), FDR, Mussolini, et all, here is one more source you may choose to deny:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/hitler-mussolini-roosevelt

Perhaps the problem is that your "University text books" are dated and as irrelevant as your arguments. Further, it is obvious you misunderstand Fascism, Liberalism and Progressivism. HG Wells, one of the most famous early Progressives, coined the term "Liberal Fascism" in a manner of admiration. The fact is that fascist movements were and are left-wing, socialist based, and both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism. In fact, prior to World War II, "fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States".

So it appears that the only "meadow muffins" in this argument are the ones you bring to the conversation. I would be pleased to send you at no cost, an excellent book on the subject, called "Liberal Fascism", by Goldberg, a NY Times best seller. You would benefit by some current reading on the subject.

@Keith: As with Palin's Revere ride, again you are mistaken. Palin was actually accurate when she said he warned the British. Those less acquainted with historical fact with their source of knowledge only the poem by Longfellow....jumped too fast to criticize and condemn.

Paul Revere was captured by the British at a road block. He was interrogated and he told them the truth that they had 500 militiamen in Concord and 1500 coming.

You only prove that liberals are impervious to any information or facts that undermine their beliefs

Hi Phyllis and James,
I am still incredulous over what you two are writing. This is the first time I have heard about “interventionist economics”. And any professor that voted for FDR would not be equating a Fascism type government with a Democratic Republic type government so I don’t believe you. From your last posts I believe I understand what is happening. This is all about Government regulation. Progressives have to be neutralized, as were the Liberals, so this is the lie being perpetrated. I also understand why you are falling for this. It is what you want to believe so you are reeled in. The internet is like the theory of relativity; is it a bomb (bad) or is it a reactor (good). When I start to investigate anything I first go to an Unabridged Dictionary: definition, all the synonyms and all the antonyms. Try that, it is an eye opener. Humor me, look up liberal then conservative

To be very honest, a lot of this ongoing discussion is over my head. But very interesting to read, for the most part. I'm not sure if I'm conservative or liberal. You'll never get my guns away from me. I believe that the death penalty should be practiced WAY more than it is, and I generally want the government to fix the roads, run the military, and leave me alone. But I also believe that, to some extent, we ARE our brothers' keeper and we must take care of those who cannot fend for themselves. The fact that we spend so much on war and military while children in our country go hungry makes me sick. The fact that there IS such a thing as homelessness in the US is a disgrace. So.......liberal ? Or conservative ?

@Keith: I really don't care about the definition of a liberal or conservative. I simply desire a government whose powers are limited. I don't like labels, as I know that depending on the situation, I have some liberal views and on others I have conservative views. I can see no advantage having a congress which puts out 80,000 pages of NEW regulations and rules every week. Their time would be better spent attending to the fiscal problems of the nation and decrease the spending. No budget in over three years? Neither conservatives or liberals are serving the citizens well at this time. To heck with ideology, lets get this nation back on track and then we can individually pursue our ideologies in the way we conduct our individual lives.

By the way, you don't actually confront any facts presented. You go merrily along with your nebulous fuchsia mantras. It insulates you from reality.

@Ed...I like what you say. I agree with most of it. I am not a liberal or a conservative, probably more of a libertarian. If you really get to know some 'homeless', some of them actually prefer that existence. There are food kitchens everywhere, even in small towns. The 8 or 9 children who die of starvation per year in the US are the result of 'parent' abuse, not lack of the availability of food. One thing for sure...the poor are NOT poor because of the rich. And I need my 'gun' to scare away the coyotes and kill the odd cotton mouth snake.

There is no excuse for a child to go hungry. Every time I shop for groceries there is at least one person using the government issued credit card in the line. There is a woman who hangs around my grocery store who asked for a ride home. But she wanted me to stop at this food distribution place first. Since she was on crutches, I went in and got her the free bags of food. I then took her home and her apartment was nicely furnished and she had a TV and a pet dog. She didn't need any kind of card to get that food. The government paid for the apartment. Our community goes beyond federal funding to help the 'disadvantaged. Private citizens give of their time to regularly check on these peoples 'well being'.

There are those who CAN pull themselves up. I met a man in the feed store who set up 3 acres of his land to produce seedlings to sell to the 'spring planters' for their vege gardens. He was excited about his success this year! He was not financially well off but he had his goals. The kid (24 years old) who owns the feed store was financed in a partnership by another man in the community. The Kid is the most amazing worker you can imagine. There are some wonderful stories out there even in these difficult times. It takes inspiration and hard work.

Phyllis:

Let me get this right. The two candle lights or one, seen by Paul and the other rider, was to signal that the Americans were either coming by land or sea? He then, to quote Palin, “rode through the towns” waking up the local British military telling them that the Americans were coming. That is the most stupid scenario I have ever heard. It is like saying race cars go to Indianapolis to change tires. They go to race and because the tires don’t last for the whole race they have to be changed.
Paul got caught between Lexington and Concord. To protect Adams and Hancock, who refused to leave Lexington because they were arguing at a kitchen table, told the Brits everything about the night happenings hoping the Brits would ride on to Concord and not go back to Lexington. Paul knew that the Brits had orders to arrest Adams and Hancock. The ruse worked. Palin; “stupid is that stupid does

Anytime anyone quotes Palin, they've just shown their hand. You're exactly right, Keith, "Stupid is as stupid does".

The only thing left to discuss is Global Warming, [excuse me Climate change], ethanol, fracking, right wing conspiracies, gay rights, abortion, and maybe the intelligence of the smartest president ever----you guys go for it!

The only person missing from the discussion, except by proxy, is B. S.---maybe you could get her on the phone? This is certainly her type of sandbox----plenty of dirt and cat litter to throw around----

Dewey,

Holy cow, that was the most arrogant, obnoxious, insulting, ignorant, astoundingly pathetic "analysis" of Conservative America I have ever read. Are you sure you're not Chris Matthews? ;-)

Reagan. Smart ? Yeah, for a flim-flam man. Remember "Reaganomics" ? "Trickle down ? We bought that line of bull. Does that make him smart, or us gullible ? I say door number 2. And selling arms to Iran for the release of the hostages. Smart ? If you think so..............

As most (obviously not all) learned after the fact that the arms deal was begun well before the inauguration. Don't attack my intelligence, tom. Go back to your Reagan alter. I don;t claim to be as superior as you must feel.

Too bad Reagan didn't use Ross Perot's team or the Israeli's to free the hostages! Then his 'security' advisors would not have had to do what they did. i bet there were 52 Americans and their families who were thankful that they 'made' that deal. 444 days is a durned long time to be held prisoner.

Why do they blame Reagan for the illegal arms negotiations that facilitated the release? I am not up on this situation.

I guess the naysayers believe Reagan must have had some whopping power to influence Fed security people BEFORE he took office. Unbelievable. Where did they hold those 'back room' conferences? Maybe in Las Vegas in a Hot Tub! LOL!

I like Ed....maybe he is pulling our leg?

I like his self description ---11:17 a. m. Wednesday----

I'm sorry. We're talking about 2 different sets of hostages. The hostages held for 444 days were released as a result of negotiations between the Carter administration and the Iranian government. The deal was completed before Reagan took office. The Iranians held up the release until after the inauguration to garner favor with the new administration.. Which worked well for them. Before Reagan's 2nd term, a deal was struck to sell arms to the Iranians in return for the release for 7 hostages held by Iranian terrorists. I have this on Michael Moores authority !!!

and besides.........what's wrong with Michael Moore ? :-)

Mr. Fisher: Please excuse me---do I understand correctly-----you are citing Micheal Moore as an authority?---On anything?---I repeat-----
PLEASE EXCUSE ME!!!!!

Ed...I just knew it! LOL! I suggested you were pulling our leg! Like I said...I like Ed!

I said before that this political stuff gets way too serious for me. I've worked real hard to rid myself of all the serious bones in my body. And the more intense some folks get, the less I care about what they're obsessing about. And when that tom m guy started the Reagan tribute, I just couldn't stop myself. BTW, Reagan was a good ol' guy, by and large.

Phyllis: Lie down with dogs---you get fleas!

Try to pet a hydrophobic dog---you get bit!

Snakes are bad, but Sneaky snakes-----???

Sorry, I just couldn`t stop myself, by and large.

Phyllis,
The welfare fight is still on. So the liberals and the conservatives have not come to a common ground. That passage was not accepted by the liberals. To the liberals the “welfare reform” was based on a myth of personal responsibility. There is no free will. It is just a dupe by con artists to keep the public from the truth and further their greedy niche.

Phyllis,
Do you believe that if conservatives get some legislation passed that is a win? I will try to make this as simple as I can. Again. Let’s use the following as an example of what I mean. For centuries liberals and conservatives fought over slavery. It was a fight of the 16th and 17th century in England that carried over into America. The slavers got favorable laws in this country. The abolitionists also got favorable laws. And the battle continued. Our civil war ended slavery. The liberal and the conservative finally agreed (not right away) slavery was wrong. Today the liberal and the conservative are on the same page, they both agree slavery is wrong. This is the position that the liberal had when the fight was going on. To sum it up: the conservative wanted slavery, the liberal did not and when the dust settled the liberal issue prevailed. As it always does!

I think I get it. You say in essence: Every human concept that can be labeled 'liberal' throughout history is owned by the liberals and eventually creeps into the mind set of the 'conservative', thus proving that liberals always 'win' as conservatives always become liberals given enough time.

Well....in various era's...such as, say, the Roman Empire, I would say their conservative ethos served them well for success. When they became 'lax' in this generational ethos and became more 'liberal', the empire was defeated and ultimately collapsed.

In reviewing world history I don't think your 'thesis' would hold up to scrutiny. Entities of organized human groupings always need a hierarchy for survival. This automatically imposes conservative principals on a 'tribe' or system of government. The levels of individual freedoms and responsibilities are dictated through this hierarchy. As to the success of 'liberalism', I can find no enduring human groupings (either tribal systems or government forms ) which can be highlighted as an example of 'liberalism' contributing to their everlasting existence in any form. If anything, as the effects of prevailing 'liberalism' encroached this was their very death knell. Liberalism does not stand for freedom. Liberalism dictates HOW everyone must think and act, because liberals 'know better'. And liberals want a pervasive government to dictate that.

The Constitution of the United States was an unbelievable phenomenon. Historically it is the only established form of government which ensures individual liberty and freedom with emphasis on limiting the government. The Magna Carta of 1216 was pretty phenomenal in that the Barons held that the 'King' was not above the law. A step in the right direction. Right now, our present government is behaving as if it is above the law. That is a death knell for the citizens and their liberty. Liberals are 'freedom snatchers'.

Thanks, Tom. I know you are correct! Cheers!

Time to leave the blither blather....per Tom's advice.

Thanks again, Tom. Liberals do that all the time....change the parameters and then bloviate! Its hopeless! LOL!

So it is today---the Progressives are more than willing to sacrifice our basic freedoms , in leu of the forgivement of their debts[Government handouts], they are eager to feed one and all to the lions, taking great comfort in the simple assurance of being eaten last---