That's the extreme right. And just because someone doesn't support gay marriage and wants Roe V Wade overturned doesn't make them a Christian extremist.
Just like much of what is criticized about "liberals" on this board is scapegoating of extreme individuals or the extreme left.
I for one support gay marriage and am pro-choice and lean conservative because liberals these days are leaning moe and more to the left.
Do you have evidence that the liberals are actually leaning more left? Could it not be that it only appears that way to you because the extreme right is leaning further and further right?
The campaign is perfect example. The Candidate all have some pretty nutty left wing positions. I don't think any of them could qualify as a moderate without doing some major flip flopping, like Clinton. The Reps are far more in line with moderate views than the dems, though each one of them has their problems, too. Federal social programs should be done away with. Social welfare programs should be done at the state and county levels, as each state is better qualified to handle the needs of it's citizens more effectively.
I'll agree that the Republicans are becoming more and more federalist but not necessarily liberal -- that is one of the problems with the term, it is so overused that it really has no meaning any more. And interesting that it is largely the "extreme right" you mentioned above that is pushing for national laws to push the social issues they care about on all states.
What in the hell are you talking about? Have we been attacked since 9-11? No. Dislike Bush all you want, but at least recognize the man successes, as few as they may be.
This is only true if you ignore the attacks on the US overseas -- there have been far more of these under Bush than any other president precisely because of the "mission accomplished" war. But since you want to ignore the attacks outside of the US (like the USS Cole), prior to 9/11 the previous attack was 8 years before when there was an attempted bombing of the World Trade Center -- so actually Bush's record is no better than Clinton's that way. Also, Clinton's responses to overseas terrorist attacks were little different than Reagan's (shelling Lebanon by a battleship, bombing a building in Libya, etc.).
Though I can think of a good many times when America and American intrests were hit by terrorists and we did nothing. Don't tell me about liberal respect for the military. The little raft the carried the bomb the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen sailed right into the boat unchalleged. Why? Did they not have guns? Sure did. Were they manned? Sure were. Hmm..., were they loaded? NO! Because of a beaurocratic rule from a beaurocratic military run by a beaurocratic government with a horny old dem at the chair.
I'd really like to see evidence of this. In fact, I believe many of the Rules of Engagement came out of conservatives in the Pentagon and the Reagan administration after the shooting down of
Iraq Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes.
No, they only go against your convoluted beliefs of what conservative ideals are. Bare limit? Like not being able to smoke in your home if you happen to live in an apartment, as is being done in a locality in California. How about telling people what to eat and how to live a heathly, and now a "Green" lifestyle. After all, since the government is going to pay all your bills, they oughta have some say in your behavior since it's something we all have to pay for. Nothing from the government is 'free". There's a movement in some city, in California of course, that is wanting to ban fireplaces because they are bad for the enviroment. Course these people can't pay for natural gas and electricity to heat their homes.
Aren't you the one that above complained about the person was using "extreme right" ideals to paint the entire right. When you talk about a town in California doing this or that, it would appear you are using the same tactics.
As for not allowing one to smoke in their own home because of the health problems it can cause, how is that different from Conservatives that continue to support marijuana laws that prevent people from legally smoking marijuana in the privacy of their own home? In fact, from what I've seen Conservatives often are just as much anti-smoking as liberals.
The reason the wildfires were so bad over there and claimed so many houses is because of stupid enviromental regulations that stopped people from creating firebreaks, and thinning some of the forests.
Actually, this is another one I find false. For example, in this case most of the homes were in the most conservative areas of California. My experience is that it is these rich, conservative homeowners that are most likely to object to firebreaks because the ruin the view from their homes and might lower their property values. I've even seen similar laws passed in one of the most conservative states for this very reason.
Cali is a liberal playground, and it is the last state I would want to live in. It is the least free state I could live in. That tells me all I need to know. Right, because the Founding Fathers dreamed of a socialist state that charges insanely high income taxes, and then take 50% of all you earn when you die. That penalizes people who do not live "green", and live healthy.
But aren't you the one who was stating above that federal programs should be done away with? As a supporter for state rights, should not the citizens of California be allowed to pass whatever laws they wish and if you don't like them, don't move there? Or are you saying that states should only have freedom to pass laws as long as they agree with what you believe?
A country in which everyone is dependant upon the government for everything so that no one will be responsible for themselves, so that no one will be truely indepentant, and so we'll all suck off the government teet, and we'll give up our guns freely and give the government absolute power over us because we'll buy the lie that the police will save us when in truth, the police are going to be too busy protecting the good side of town because you ain't got the money to hire more cops because it's all going to health care because the govenment is paying prices for health care that will make your nose bleed because they is no free market system for healthcare.
Interesting rant. Yet, while if things are done wrong it might happen, Europe appears to be proof that if more liberal policies are put in place (such as health care and social programs) that this "horror story" of yours is nothing more than a horror story to scare children. The fact is, Western European economies are at least as healthy as ours and statistics indicate they have less crime, a better quality of life, and live healthier than we do in the US.