Originally Posted by Kiff '61

The only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT act. A guy who actually practices what he preaches. He refused to take PAC money in his last election and almost lost his seat over it.

i can see how that would make alex vomit.

i, on the other hand, find it admirable, if a bit idealistic.


TK

Originally Posted by monoghan

So the dictionary defines 'smarmy" as a "New Yorker"? How appropriate.

Those who don't believe the we are moving into the 4th Turning should look at the Fiesta Bowl symbolism. Marc Lamb and Virgil have a good discussion of the 4th turning meaning of coach Jim Tressel and the team of Ohio State Buckeyes (contrasted with the group of Xer individuals from Miami).

On a personal note, I was fortunate enough to attend the Fiesta bowl and my tickets were on the Miami side among the Miami fans (actually, even the Miami side was 60% Ohio State). The taunts of the Miami crowd were clearly 3T ("You wish,pause pause, you were, pause pause, the Miami Hurricanes; you guys suck; good band, bad team; and other trash talking stuff so popular among professional athletes). the Ohio State cheers were leftovers from the last 4T (spelling out O-H-I-O from each side of the stadium; "Let's go Bucks"). The Miami fans were just Yankee fans (when the Yankees are winning) lording it over because they were on a long winning streak and not too smart about football (three separate groups of Miami fans near us all thought that overtime in college football was the sudden death variety of the NFL).

All this leads to my observation, from discussions with Miami fans but mainly their accents, that they are largely from New York/New Jersey and fit the definition noted above.

I continue to be amazed at the number of Ohioans posting here!

Is it too much to see the game as a Blue America/Red America symbol? As a symbol of Bush vs. Gore, double overtime complete with controversial penalty call = recount?

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

I continue to be amazed at the number of Ohioans posting here!

I also consider myself somewhat of an honorary Ohioan, as I went to college in that state. ;-)

Is it too much to see the game as a Blue America/Red America symbol? As a symbol of Bush vs. Gore, double overtime complete with controversial penalty call = recount?

Yes, Leo, I think it is a bit of a stretch. This time the good guys won. ;-)

But seriously...I've been tired of the 'Canes for a good long time, and it was personally satisfying to me to see them get upset, Turnings or no Turnings.

************************************************** ******

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Liebermann is not even worth mentioning (though I just did; ha!)

Agreed. Too far to the right.

Just recently, I was listening to various Democratic contenders, and it occurred to me that of them all, Lieberman was the only one who sounded as if me might be marginally acceptable if we have to have a Democratic president.

There is a reaction starting against that icon of the roaring 90's The SUV or as we Australian call them 4WD's. I personally find nothing wrong with owning a SUV (in some cases they are good vehicles especially the Nissan Patrol or Toyota Hilux and Landcrusier).

However the most people who do buy them are sort of fearful about the world and to them a SUV is like a Tank driving them through those mean streets, they would buy a Hummer if they could afford it. The same reason why gun sales have skyrocketed over the last few years and especially after 911. Also SUV's are like the ultimate vehicle for Middle Aged to Elderly Boomers it appeals to their sensibilities and tastes.

This is indeed a 4T sign, this would have been unimageable a few years ago, they were concerns about the safety of SUV's and calls to make them safer, however not many calls calling for them to be banished off the roads, all together. I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites. Like left-liberals, they uphold no tradition of rights so everything comes down to privileges masquerading as rights, determined by some arbitrary consensus. Gather a group of people together to vote your way and you can steal candy from a baby without guilt as far as they are concerned. So naturally, the neo-con is liable to look at an SUV, whine, "I don't like that," and rationalize any excuse to deprive others of their ability to own one. He does not give a damn about you or your rights.

This is not the more libertarian-flavored conservatism associated with Reagan and the 1980s, despite the fact that RR brought a lot of neo-cons into the White House to fight the Cold War. For a taste of the conservatism of Reagan and the 1980s, read The American Conservative at www.amconmag.com . For something completely different (i.e. the so-called "conservatism" of Bush and the 1990s and 2000s, read National Review.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites. Like left-liberals, they uphold no tradition of rights so everything comes down to privileges masquerading as rights, determined by some arbitrary consensus. Gather a group of people together to vote your way and you can steal candy from a baby without guilt as far as they are concerned. So naturally, the neo-con is liable to look at an SUV, whine, "I don't like that," and rationalize any excuse to deprive others of their ability to own one. He does not give a damn about you or your rights.

This is not the more libertarian-flavored conservatism associated with Reagan and the 1980s, despite the fact that RR brought a lot of neo-cons into the White House to fight the Cold War. For a taste of the conservatism of Reagan and the 1980s, read The American Conservative at www.amconmag.com . For something completely different (i.e. the so-called "conservatism" of Bush and the 1990s and 2000s, read National Review.

FWIW, I personally dislike SUVs for three reasons: they drink fuel in huge gulps, they don't handle worth a damn, and many like the Jeep Grand Cherokee have dubious reliability. I also agree with Tristan that many SUV drivers (like my sister-in-law) are overcompensating for fear at least of other drivers, if not of the world itself, and such drivers tend to make me nervous.

That said, there's no way I would refuse someone the right to own one. I would support a modest increase in their safety (increased rollover protection) and fuel economy requirements (one or two mpg or so), but no more than that. Reclassifying them as passenger cars subject to the 27mpg CAFE requirement might well mandate that my next vehicle be either an SUV, or a dorky little Toyota Echo, neither choice of which would be acceptable to me.

So, I say let people buy all the SUVs they want. Of course, when the Middle East finally explodes (whether this year or five years from now), and gas shoots up overnight to $6 per gallon, all the SUV owners might wake up one morning to find their brand-new $35,000 machines only worth $10,000 or so (Remember what happened to land barges like my Dad's Oldsmobile in 1979?). But that's a risk people should have the right to take in America.

Originally Posted by STONEWALL PATTON

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites blah blah ba blah blah ...

Hey Stoney, perhaps ya oughta try reading the article before ya go blabbin' off ya big fat neocon blah blah mouth!

First of all, the "she" writer is a he. And secondly, our mate, from Aussie land, obviously got confused about what the writer was trying to say. Here's the last paragraph:

"Our dependence on oil is pervasive ? and while browbeating SUV owners may be satisfying to a certain element, it won't change the reality of the energy equation, let alone defang international terrorism. To suggest that SUV owners are somehow to blame for the events of September 11 represents a new low in the war by special-interest elites on the American driver." ? Eric Peters (editorial writer for the Washington Times and the auto columnist for America Online, Netscape, and CompuServe.)


I think that moron hat, you keep trying to fit on Bush's head, fits a lot better on your own, Stoney. :wink:

Here is the Blame America First crap that the Eric Peters NRO article was referring to:

On September 19, 2001, the Boston Globe printed an op/ed, "Sticky Questions for the Elite," by Derrick Z. Jackson of its staff. The piece says the U.S. is partially to blame for the attacks of terrorists because of our wealth, our environmental policies, our SUVs and our suburban living. The piece explicitly says that God is not happy with us.

When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made similar comments, a media firestorm resulted.

Selected quotes from the Jackson piece:

"God cannot be all that happy with a nation that is 5 percent of the world's population, produces a quarter of Earth's carbon dioxide emissions, yet walks out of global warming talks."

and

"...it is unclear how much of America's business is worthy of God's blessing. So much of it is so obviously decadent, a nation of SUVs backing out of huge, energy-sucking suburban houses to purchase insane stores of food at Sam's Club - with a stop at Starbucks along the way."

and

"Not so easy to consider is whether all Americans, with the vomitous mass carnage on our own soil, are finally ready to sacrifice any part of our way of life that contributes every day to the envy, jealousy, and, for some, the hatred of our flag. Americans must ask themselves in the coming months: Is this war solely to get rid of terrorists - as of course should be done - or also to maintain our conspicuous opulence and vastly disproportionate consumption of world resources?

On Sunday many Americans went to church to ask God to bless America. If we were asking God simply for wisdom and for balm to touch grieving families, that would be one thing. But from all the giant sport utility vehicles adorned with American flags, it is an open question whether we also asked God to bless our way of life that damages the environment and makes us so dependent on oil that it has gotten us into a deadly tangle of relationships in the Middle East."

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

I continue to be amazed at the number of Ohioans posting here!

I also consider myself somewhat of an honorary Ohioan, as I went to college in that state. ;-)

"Ohio, the heart of it all."

Even though I live just over the state line in Michigan, my county, Lenawee, is counted as part of the Toledo metropolitain area. Also, when I decided to support a zoo, I became a member of the Toledo Zoological Societey instead of the Detroit Zoological Society. Do those criteria make me an honorary Ohioan as well?

BTW, Leo, care to go out for a beer?

Tristan:

Here is even a recommendation from Jude Wanniski:



http://polyconomics.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2384

(Usual disclaimers)

Jan 8 2003

Memo on the Margin
?You?re Invited to the War Party?

Memo To: Website Fans, Browsers, Clients
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: From Pat Buchanan?s new magazine

I was skeptical when last fall I first heard of Pat Buchanan?s new periodical, The American Conservative. There are so many sources of commentary, on the right and the left, that another one would get swallowed up in the din. As each issue rolls into my mailbox, though, I find it gets better all the time, as the editors find their footing and as conservative talent that otherwise has been shut out of the media takes it seriously. The January 13 issue occupied my attention for more than an hour and persuaded me to recommend a subscription to friends and family who still had not heard of the magazine. There are several exceptional pieces in the issue, but my favorite is Georgie Anne Geyer?s review of Bob Woodward?s new book, ?Bush at War.? I?d already read the book, and as usual I enjoyed its meatiness, especially the direct quotes from the President that were more revealing than I?d seen elsewhere. Perhaps because I was looking for particular things in the book, I missed the themes that Georgie Anne picked up on. I?ve always admired her reporting and writings in the conservative press. This piece, ?You?re Invited to the War Party,? is superlative.

http://www.amconmag.com/01_13_03/print/geyer7print.html

BTW, paleolibertarian site www.lewrockwell.com has actually surpassed National Review Online in hits. I wonder what that says about the current public attitude toward neo-cons, irrespective of major media propaganda?

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Leo Schulte

I continue to be amazed at the number of Ohioans posting here!

I also consider myself somewhat of an honorary Ohioan, as I went to college in that state. ;-)

"Ohio, the heart of it all."

Even though I live just over the state line in Michigan, my county, Lenawee, is counted as part of the Toledo metropolitain area. Also, when I decided to support a zoo, I became a member of the Toledo Zoological Societey instead of the Detroit Zoological Society. Do those criteria make me an honorary Ohioan as well?

BTW, Leo, care to go out for a beer?

I've lived here 2 years, 10 months, plus an odd number of days, and look eagerly forward to the day when I'm no longer considered an "honorary Ohioan" by anyone. I almost feel like I'm back in 1976 again, plotting my escape from Arizona

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites. Like left-liberals, they uphold no tradition of rights so everything comes down to privileges masquerading as rights, determined by some arbitrary consensus. Gather a group of people together to vote your way and you can steal candy from a baby without guilt as far as they are concerned. So naturally, the neo-con is liable to look at an SUV, whine, "I don't like that," and rationalize any excuse to deprive others of their ability to own one. He does not give a damn about you or your rights.

Actually that National Review article was pro-SUV, the 'conservative' person who railed aganist the SUV's was an Australian. Australian 'conservatives' are more law and order minded than US 'conservatives' and less concerned about maximsing liberty for everyone.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

Actually that National Review article was pro-SUV, the 'conservative' person who railed aganist the SUV's was an Australian. Australian 'conservatives' are more law and order minded than US 'conservatives' and less concerned about maximsing liberty for everyone.

First of all, why provide a link to the pro-SUV guy, when you've talked about a anti-SUV gal?

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

First of all, why provide a link to the pro-SUV guy, when you've talked about a anti-SUV gal?

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Firstly,
Well the article talked about the backlash aganist SUV's and what may be behind it.

Secondly,
I will clear this one Australian 'Conservatives' do not mind trampling over 'few liberties and rights here and there' in the pursuit of making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society, some of them would love a Singapore style justice system if it meant very low crime rates. Before the 1960's Singapore's apporach to justice which includes corporal punishment for minor offenders was the standard in Britain and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

[quote="Kiff '61"]

Originally Posted by eameece

Kiff, I don't know what smarmy means!

From the online Merriam-Webster:

1 : revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of smarmy self-satisfaction -- New Yorker>

I don't see that in him. He's a bit ponderous, but he seems straightforward to me.

Gephardt first ran for president in 1988. The world has passed him by.

I don't know why having run in 1988 means the world has passed him by. He was just an upstart then. Gore ran in 1988 too. How has the world passed him by more than the other candidates? I'm not sure the people have really known Gephardt that well yet. I think people would like him if they did.

Feingold would be better, but he's not running.

Perhaps the people would prefer someone they know to an inexperienced upstart.

Well, that's what I'm thinking right now, which is why I think Bush will probably get re-elected.

Or else a more experienced Democrat than Edwards. Bush doesn't have much experience either, although people cergainly know him.

Actually, on astrological grounds, I claim Bush will not be in office after 2005. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Secondly,
I will clear this one Australian 'Conservatives' do not mind trampling over 'few liberties and rights here and there' in the pursuit of making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society, some of them would love a Singapore style justice system if it meant very low crime rates. Before the 1960's Singapore's apporach to justice which includes corporal punishment for minor offenders was the standard in Britain and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Singapore is not about "upholding the law," but rather what is done with the lawbreaker. Namely their meating out of extreme punishments. Obviously men are imperfect, and thus, "making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society" is an imperfect science. But the only hope is the notion of "the rule of law."

Otherwise, your society is ever changing the rules during the game. Pretty soon you'll have quite the mess on your hands, and that will lead to anything but "liberty and freedom for all." It will lead straight to hell.

It is a sad thing said of the modern-day liberal; that they are more inclined toward their notion of "fairness" than they are inclined toward the "rule of law." It may seem "fair," at any given time, to give a lawbreaker a pass merely because that person belongs to a certain group or weak element of society, but this is a very dangerous step toward anarchy, and the rule of no-law.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

Secondly,
I will clear this one Australian 'Conservatives' do not mind trampling over 'few liberties and rights here and there' in the pursuit of making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society, some of them would love a Singapore style justice system if it meant very low crime rates. Before the 1960's Singapore's apporach to justice which includes corporal punishment for minor offenders was the standard in Britain and also in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Singapore is not about "upholding the law," but rather what is done with the lawbreaker. Namely their meating out of extreme punishments. Obviously men are imperfect, and thus, "making a more 'ordered, decent civil' society" is an imperfect science. But the only hope is the notion of "the rule of law."

Otherwise, your society is ever changing the rules during the game. Pretty soon you'll have quite the mess on your hands, and that will lead to anything but "liberty and freedom for all." It will lead straight to hell.

It is a sad thing said of the modern-day liberal; that they are more inclined toward their notion of "fairness" than they are inclined toward the "rule of law." It may seem "fair," at any given time, to give a lawbreaker a pass merely because that person belongs to a certain group or weak element of society, but this is a very dangerous step toward anarchy, and the rule of no-law.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

This liberal can't argue with that! :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Second, this may come as a shock to you (I know it does to liberals), but upholding the law (and some degree of civil order) is the only means man has at "maximsing liberty for everyone."

This liberal can't argue with that! :wink:

I wanted to say a few words about Gephardt, since I've been watching him for 20 years and have seen him in person twice (once as a student at the University of Iowa, when he was campaigning for President in 1987, and once at a Federal employees' union national conference). I've a few flip-flops on the issues and wonder what his record will be as President.

In the early eighties, he was fairly conservative, socially -- kind of straddling a middle ground between the two extreme pro-life and pro-choice positions. He was for high tech investment and was considered part of a group of Young Turk "Atari Democrats".

In 1987-1988, running in the 1988 Democratic primaries, he switched around and became very pro-labor union and protectionist. This played well in the industrial mid-west, which was reeling from the switch from industrial to post-industrial economy, and caused him to win the Iowa caucus in 1988. However, he lacked the funds to pursue his advantage in the upcoming primaries and extend his support to the Northeast, South, and West, which were booming economically.

Since 1994, when then House Speaker Tom Foley lost re-election and the Democrats lost control of the House, he's been fighting unsuccessfully for his party to take back control of the House and for him to be House Speaker. I can't really assess whether his failure to take back the House during the Clinton years is a reflection on him or on other factors (like the GOP's edge in fundraising), but his failure in 2002 was particularly galling and can be fairly attributed to his party not putting forward a strong message.

It is also worth noting that socially, his stance on issues such as abortion has moved left ward. That is common as Democratic politicians from fairly conservative areas move from getting support from their base district to prominence on the national scene and the support of the movement Democrats becomes more critical. You also saw this happen with Al Gore.

I don't know of any personal scandals associated with Gephardt and his marriage record appears fairly solid. He has the persona of a Boy Scout, which should help. He also looks quite a bit like Dan Quayle, which is unfortunate. :lol:

I wanted to say a few words about Gephardt, since I've been watching him for 20 years and have seen him in person twice (once as a student at the University of Iowa, when he was campaigning for President in 1987, and once at a Federal employees' union national conference). I've a few flip-flops on the issues and wonder what his record will be as President.

In the early eighties, he was fairly conservative, socially -- kind of straddling a middle ground between the two extreme pro-life and pro-choice positions. He was for high tech investment and was considered part of a group of Young Turk "Atari Democrats".

In 1987-1988, running in the 1988 Democratic primaries, he switched around and became very pro-labor union and protectionist. This played well in the industrial mid-west, which was reeling from the switch from industrial to post-industrial economy, and caused him to win the Iowa caucus in 1988. However, he lacked the funds to pursue his advantage in the upcoming primaries and extend his support to the Northeast, South, and West, which were booming economically.

Since 1994, when then House Speaker Tom Foley lost re-election and the Democrats lost control of the House, he's been fighting unsuccessfully for his party to take back control of the House and for him to be House Speaker. I can't really assess whether his failure to take back the House during the Clinton years is a reflection on him or on other factors (like the GOP's edge in fundraising), but his failure in 2002 was particularly galling and can be fairly attributed to his party not putting forward a strong message.

It is also worth noting that socially, his stance on issues such as abortion has moved left ward. That is common as Democratic politicians from fairly conservative areas move from getting support from their base district to prominence on the national scene and the support of the movement Democrats becomes more critical. You also saw this happen with Al Gore.

I don't know of any personal scandals associated with Gephardt and his marriage record appears fairly solid. He has the persona of a Boy Scout, which should help. He also looks quite a bit like Dan Quayle, which is unfortunate. :lol:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites. Like left-liberals, they uphold no tradition of rights so everything comes down to privileges masquerading as rights, determined by some arbitrary consensus.

Is this your opening shot on the issue of driver"s rights? If so, I'll enjoy seeing you try to defending your point. There are a lot of things that can reasonabley be called "rights", but SUV ownership and use aren't among them.

Originally Posted by ... then Stoney

Gather a group of people together to vote your way and you can steal candy from a baby without guilt as far as they are concerned. So naturally, the neo-con is liable to look at an SUV, whine, "I don't like that," and rationalize any excuse to deprive others of their ability to own one. He does not give a damn about you or your rights.

This is not the more libertarian-flavored conservatism associated with Reagan and the 1980s, despite the fact that RR brought a lot of neo-cons into the White House to fight the Cold War. For a taste of the conservatism of Reagan and the 1980s, read The American Conservative at www.amconmag.com . For something completely different (i.e. the so-called "conservatism" of Bush and the 1990s and 2000s, read National Review.

Reagan was the father of pseudo-Nazis, just like the current guy. If he was so positively disposed to personal freedom, then why did his administration engage in the following:

• Use of the Police Power: There are any number of examples, but I'll chose the most egregious, from a libertarian perspective. He and his turned the more-or-less benign Federal anti-drug campaign into a War on Drugs. How does preventing self-destructive behavior qualify as crucial to the national interest. Unapproved personal sexual behavior was another must-punish offense. Corproate malfeasance wasn't, of course.
• Which Brings Us to Corporatism: The Interior Department decided that Federal lands made good commercial property, and basically gave-away mineral and timber rights to Republican corporate interests. Add the wholesale give-away of militray contracts to the list, while you're at it - all subsidized windfalls on an unprecidented scale. Of course, no money should go to welfare queens.

I'll quit here before I'm overcome with vitriol, and this becomes a tome. :lol:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

I happended to read an article by a politically Conservative Boomer of all people, calling for SUV's to be totally banished off the roads because she see them as a meance to other drivers.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...ters010803.asp

That is no surprise at all, Tristan. The National Review has been completely taken over by the neo-cons, the most prominent of whom began their political careers as Trotskyites. Like left-liberals, they uphold no tradition of rights so everything comes down to privileges masquerading as rights, determined by some arbitrary consensus.

Is this your opening shot on the issue of driver"s rights? If so, I'll enjoy seeing you try to defending your point. There are a lot of things that can reasonabley be called "rights", but SUV ownership and use aren't among them.

Originally Posted by ... then Stoney

Gather a group of people together to vote your way and you can steal candy from a baby without guilt as far as they are concerned. So naturally, the neo-con is liable to look at an SUV, whine, "I don't like that," and rationalize any excuse to deprive others of their ability to own one. He does not give a damn about you or your rights.

This is not the more libertarian-flavored conservatism associated with Reagan and the 1980s, despite the fact that RR brought a lot of neo-cons into the White House to fight the Cold War. For a taste of the conservatism of Reagan and the 1980s, read The American Conservative at www.amconmag.com . For something completely different (i.e. the so-called "conservatism" of Bush and the 1990s and 2000s, read National Review.

Reagan was the father of pseudo-Nazis, just like the current guy. If he was so positively disposed to personal freedom, then why did his administration engage in the following:

• Use of the Police Power: There are any number of examples, but I'll chose the most egregious, from a libertarian perspective. He and his turned the more-or-less benign Federal anti-drug campaign into a War on Drugs. How does preventing self-destructive behavior qualify as crucial to the national interest. Unapproved personal sexual behavior was another must-punish offense. Corproate malfeasance wasn't, of course.
• Which Brings Us to Corporatism: The Interior Department decided that Federal lands made good commercial property, and basically gave-away mineral and timber rights to Republican corporate interests. Add the wholesale give-away of militray contracts to the list, while you're at it - all subsidized windfalls on an unprecidented scale. Of course, no money should go to welfare queens.

I'll quit here before I'm overcome with vitriol, and this becomes a tome. :lol: