The economic history of the United States, the civil rights history of the United States, the foreign policy history of the United States, etc. is why "liberals" condescend to those who ignore history and just want to keep doing the same things while expecting different results.
I mean, how can you not condescend to someone who answers every problem with "tax cuts."

"Now, the Obamanation thinks he can ram through whatever he wants because the teeming masses just don't understand that he's doing it for their own good .... and ..... it is an election year."

Those teeming masses elected him and he is only trying to carry out the promises he made to them during the campaign. I guess after 8 years of Bush that is a concept righties don't understand.

Nation building anyone???

"But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration."

Let's be specific. Which ideas have conservatives had in the past fifty years that were, in the end, right???
where were they on civil rights....dead wrong.
where have they been on things like SS....dead wrong.
Where have they been on our various wars....dead wrong.
Where have they been on the economy....dead wrong.

If conservatives are honest they would admit that conservatism is now and always has been an attempt to justify keeping things as they are so that the same "few" can remain wealthy and priveleged while the vast majority remain poor and disadvantaged, even disenfranchised as Tancredo advocated for the other night at the Tea Party convention when he said we need "literacy tests."
If you are proud of the history of conservatism good for you but I doubt you can point to much good conservatives have brought to the nation in our entire history but I can easily point to many evil things conservatives have protected with everything they could muster.
The Enlightenment was a period liberal philosophical growth and liberalism still stands for the ideals developed during that period while Conservatism was then and is still now opposed to those same ideals.

"Keeping things as they are? So, since Reagan changed so many things, like the tax code, foreign policy, etc., he was a liberal?"

Good point but in effect Reagan was actually trying to roll back parts of New Deal programs which were brought about by liberals. Just as today conservatives want to abolish SS, or privatize it (heh heh), so they want change but it is just really a return to the way things were before liberals changed things.

"That being said, there are also a lot of naive liberals, - especially relating to issues of national security."

A very strong case could be made for standing up for Constitutional rights even in the face of terrorism. It could be shown historically that often the most naive are those to unquestioningly trust their government's abrogation of rights to enable it to keep the population safe. Virtually always, the rights naively sacrificed by those wanting safety are never restored and eventually the same practices the government used to keep the population safe become the policies by which they maintain dictatorial power.
It is not naive to resist increases in federal power and the creation of a whole new class of individual called "enemy combatant" which is neither a "person" endowed with rights as the constitution demands or a "prisoner of war" with rights under the Geneva Conventions. It is naive on the part of those who so willingly accept such constitutional bull shit.

"certainly not. like when issues such as universal health care and higher tax rates are discussed (which are increases in federal power) one shouldn't be labeled as the party of "no" or an "obstructinist" or "anti-american" or just plain mean and heartless."

Party of "no" and "obstructionist" labels were earned even if you don't consider health care bills. The Republican strategy is to filibuster virtually everything and they have broken records for filibusters. They are earning those labels and hopefully it is beginning to get traction with the American people.

"See also Japanese interment camps. Progressives loved that ass."

An egregious example of the government denying rights, and one committed under a liberal president. I would never argue that liberals are always consistent not always immune to the same fears that drive conservatives and it is usually fear which enables government to deny rights.

"If they wanted, they could force the Republicans to actually filibuster, but they are far too scared to bring their bills to light, to have them discussed in the open."

I agree with you about how filibusters should have to be conducted but I suspect the reason the Dems haven't done anything to change the rules has nothing to do with the reason you cite. I would say it is just that the Dem leaders don't have real backbones. I consider it pathetic the way the large Dem majority lets the minority push it around.

"We ran a stinker, but by the looks of the current polls, you guys elected one."

That is why liberals condescend to conservatives.
Endlessly posting talking point insults for the president and pretending you even have a well thought out basis for it. The mostly intellectually dishonest arguments put forth by conservatives virtually beg for condescension.

"How about I lay out the basis for it and you bitch about Bush."

I posted quite a bit in this thread and I don't think anyone could pretend that my arguments boiled down to blaming Bush, therefore, once again you come back with nothing except a silly talking point.
It's all you got.

"so technically, she is correct."

The argument against conservatism goes back much farther than REagan or Bush. They are the whipping boys for Reaganomics which is only a small part of conservatism. You would have to go clear back to Revolutionary days and slavery to get to the beginnings of conservatism in the US and clear to before the Magna Carta if you were to trace it in England. Conservatism really just doesn't have a good era to be proud of.

"hint.....they are right."

History says different. Conservative ideas virtually always eventually fall to liberal ideas. Liberalism can be taken to extremes which one could argue is represented by Communism but as long as it is kept within reasonable bounds liberalism is and always has been the only successful path to freedom, mass prosperity and justice.
About the only benefit Conservatism offers is to keep Liberalism from going too far too fast so you could say it is a limiting factor but in and of itself conservatism offers only, at best, the status quo and only those satisfied with the status quo should profess to be real conservatives.

" interesting perspective, she must then also accord the bush years as such since it was the majority that elected him..."

Did Bush promise to destroy the economy??
If he did then he kept his promises.
The majority elects teh president, the majority is not always right. So far, with this president, I think the majority chose well.

"BUSH= BAD
Light Skinned inexperienced negro= Good"

What are you trying to say??
Never mind, I think I know.

"The best party is the one that says "spending cuts"."

In other words the best party to you is the one that most oversimplifies things. Perhaps we need a Simpleton Party, where every issue is boiled down to a talking point. The entire party platform could be written on Sarah Palin's palm.

"No, Danni. It's not the Simpleton Party."

If you think the answer to our deficit problems will be solved by just cutting spending then yes, the Simpleton Party is for you. When you cut spending you also cut employment which is exactly what we don't need right now. We need to get the economy growing and tax revenues increasing, we need to let the tax cuts which largely caused the mess expire and be repealed. We need to stop thinking, as a nation, that we can have wars without taxes to pay for them. There is no free lunch or free wars. You might consider who told us we could have a free or nearly free war and then consider they are the same ones who passed huge tax cuts for the rich.
You might consider those things, but you won't.
Simpleton Party, yes, it's time!

"this coming from someone who believe we can solve our deficit problems by just increasing 2 tax brackets in our tax system."

I never said that. Growing the economy is the main thing we need to do to reduce deficit, increased employment and wages will bring more tax revenue than anything else we can do. We also need to stop electing lunatics who want to invade countries that never attacked us and cost us hundreds of billions short term, trillions long term with the cost of long term VA care, etc. Then yes, there is also those tax cuts, just the Bush tax cuts alone were estimated at costing us 2.5 trillion ovre ten years, who knows how much the REagan cuts reduced revenues. Probably trillions more. Be all that as it may, only members of the Simpleton Party think just cut, cut, cut will reduce or pay off the deficit.

"The repub/dem, concervative/liberal paradigm is nothing but a intentional diversion."

Utter nonsense. Meaningless words to make the person who posts them feel superior to all of us stuck in the liberal/conservative paradigm. Intellectual masturbation.

"you believe all solutions come from the left and all problems come from the right.>

I don't believe, I know that our debt is due to Reaganomics, more correctly called Supply Side Economics. The folks like Petrous and you mention "spending cuts" as if that will somehow solve our problems, but you completely ignore the possibility (fact) that we are already behind the curve on infrastructure, education, innovation, etc. and to catch up we need to spend (invest) not cut. Dwight Eisenhower was called a socialist and worse for pushing for the interstate highway system but in the end there isn't the slightest doubt that he was right and his critics, THE CONSERVATIVES, were dead wrong. The same thing is happening again today. We can either "cut spending, cut spending, cut spending" and watch the world pass us by or invest, invest, invest into the future so that our children's incomes will be high enough to create the tax revenues to pay down the debts that so many of you have become so concerned about only since Obama took office.

"And none of the whiny squawking by the Limbaugh partisans has convinced any of us otherwise."

Isn't that the truth. If anything their lack of real arguments has convinced me even more that they lack any coherent ideas to fix the nation that their side broke. Their answer to almost everything is much like George Bush's answer on Iraq, "stay the course"...more of the same....more tax cuts for the rich and wait for some more of that great trickle down.

Funny thing about humor, it usually requires something funny for it to work right.

"Then we would not have deficit spending."

OK, in 2006 the federal government employed approx. 14.6 million people, so if we fire 25% we will add 3.65 million to the unemployment rolls.
Brilliant, why didn't I think of that??

BTW MIDTOWNCOWBOY, you really should consider joining the new political party, The Simpletons Party, where every issue is reduced to a simplistic (and idiotic) talking point.

"Maybe one of you condescending Liberals can explain why $8 out of every $10 of stimulus being spent on Wind Power is going to either China or Spain."

Because of the Free Trade agreement signed by George W. Bush. You're welcome.

Now, perhaps you can explain why conservatives, REpublicans and even Tea Party attendees aren't protesting outsourcing of American jobs?
Why are y'all so willing to align yourselves with the transnational corporations??

"What office does Tom Daschle currently hold?"

The Office of Biggest Sellout in America.

"Baloney. Nobody is forcing them to purchase these, especially with Stimulus money. The fact of the matter is no oversight by this administrastion and you know it."

No, you are full of baloney. The original stimulus bill had "buy American" provisions in it but they were forced to remove them because of international agreements.

"Senate softens 'Buy American' provision in stimulus bill"

"Maybe you should attend one and see for yourself; it won't cost you anythin g other than a few hours of your time."

I already went to one and was confronted by the nastiest, craziest bunch I have encountered in a long time. They meet every Sat. at US1 and Oakland Park Blvd. I did nothing to piss them off except ask a couple why they hate Obama so much. They then went crazy and I left as quickly as I could. I'm not interested in being anywhere near any of those crazies again.

So are you proud of McCain for trying to delete it???
The point is that INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY GW BUSH PROHIBIT BUY AMERICAN PROVISIONS in our stimulus bill WHILE CHINA'S STIMULUS BILL HAS BUY CHINESE PROVISIONS. You should read the China Free Trade agreement signed by GWB in 2001. You will be horrified. Don't get me wrong, Obama has done NOTHING to improve the situation, I am not defending him here. He is just a intoxicated with free trade as his predecessors.
BTW, Spud, free trade between Canada and the US is one thing, your country does not underminse wages in the US and lead us on a race to the bottom, there is nothing wrong with free trade between countries that have reasonable protections for labor and the environment but nations like China are destroying labor and the environment.

"You bet. You?"

YOu are proud of him trying to delete the Buy American provision?
Ok if you say so but I'm not.

"I'm on your side, missy.

Hey, I'm old, sometimes it takes a while before I get it.