:lol: Reagan was not a Neo-con, Einstein, he was a traditional conservative, as was George Bush I, both of whom I voted for. :lol: I'm a registered Independent and I do not vote by party. I vote for the smarter, more pragmatic candidate, if there is any choice at all. I've voted for many republicans over the years and many democrats and the occasional independent moderate. Anyone who thinks this big-spending, imprudent, bumbling current administration is anything like Ronald Reagan's Republican party, just doesn't understand a damn thing about politics.
Man, name calling seems to be back around here. Talk about practice what you preach. Can I get mod here? But that aside, if you think Bush I or II were conservative's, then I see where you get your now famous "moderate" moniker. Both were close to being fiscally liberal and far from conservative. Reagan is the consummate conservative and what all liberal "neo-con" haters dread the most. I guess to you, Carter was a traditional conservative. Kennedy was more a traditional conservative than what either Bush is.
It washed with you and Clinton I bet. I smell a strong smell of hypocrisy in the air.......kinda smells like BS to me.
for once i dont have much time so i will do quick responses: no she isnt. the people are not tired of partisan bickering. and mccain is an embarrasment to our democracy and needs to stop his damn grandstanding. of course, his "moderate" bs is just the sort of thing that tricks people without principles. maybe he will take care of the important issue of steroids in sports while in office. i cant live another minute without mccain calling out athletes. the democrat will make his main issue withdrawal from the war, and the republican will do the opposite. that is the only issue that will matter and the election will hinge on how things are going in iraq. things will be improving, so giuliani will get elected.
This is the crux of our disagreement and, I fear, one with no middle ground. As a "can't see ahead" type, I fully understand that the old axiom of "give 'em an inch" may apply, however, I am willing to risk any potential abuse because of what's at stake, i.e. MY ASS!
A duly noted important consideration. I guess that I don't really think my ass is personally at stake over these wiretaps. I worry about what happens next when there is no proper oversight in a democracy. It becomes an eroding of the democracy and we are letting irrational fear of terrorism be the instrument of it. The enemy has won something if we let that happen. These third-world criminals can't bring down the USA, all they can do is terrorize us. Make us afraid. Bring out our irrational fears. Well, I don't think we should fear them. They are a lot more bark than they are bite and they can't win. We don't have to sink to their level to beat them. That's letting them win something, too.
Man, someone is living in a acid-induced haze. Tell the families of the dead from 9/11 that all terrorists can do is "terrorize us." To me, it looks like they have the capability to kill many of us if we don't give our officials in charge the tools to do their Constitutionally protected duty.
I'm a platinum flier, and spend a fair amount of time in NYC. I have never once said to myself I'm not going to leave my hotel, or get on the subway because I am afraid of terrorism. While we are always at risk I don't let that run my life.
Neither do I, but I'm more at risk there than I am in Breaux Bridge, don't you think? I've flown 80,000 actual miles so far this year. I take the PATH from the WTC to Jersey. I take the subway from Wall St. to mid town and I spend all non working/sleeping hours walking the city streets. That wasn't my point.