Oh for gawd's sake...boilerplate sophistry!

While I agree that some Republicans and/or conservatives have been stupid about "big" government (specifically not getting rid of Federal control of health/education), the three examples you give have nothing to do with "religious" interference that undermines contemporary conservatism.

You are not advocating "libery" but "libertine".

Good lord, if this is the "quality" of "liberal" argument .... !

Bring back Hugh.

I don't remember liberals being so terribly fond of Goldwater back in 1964. Why would they want to carry on his cause now?

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Which party is it whose supporters enact speech codes on college campuses, shutting out differences of opinion? Whose party's supporters oppose the right to bear arms, repeatedly ignoring the Constitutional statement "Congress shall make no law. . .?" and incidentally, which party has had a President sign into law opposition to same-sex marriage, and whose most recent Presidential candidate supported that very position, only qualifying it with an opposition to a Constitutional Amendment?

I'm not a Christian by any stretch, nor am I a "conservative." I'm solidly liberal by my community standards (and fairly liberal by more rational, neutral standards), and agree that the stated flaws are marks against the Republican Party. However, flaws run just as deep in our other national party, whose members and supporters operate with identical willful blindness to their flaws. The difference to me comes down to that one party is willing to take decisive, even controversial action to protect this nation, and the other is not. When the Democrats become a realistic party of American national security priorities first, and social change second, they will once again have a chance at my vote.

Saddly, BC, ever since the govt got involved in issuing marriage licences, the churches have had nothing to really say in the matter. Nobody needs Church sanction to married in the eyes of the state.

When I get married in October, I need both my Church and the State to sign off, because I choose to.
If I only get the State, I get all of the fun privledges and resposibilities the Gov. bestows. Theologically, I may be in trouble. But I'd be married.
If I only get a preacher to marry me, the Gov. won't recognize my marriage (in my state, at least).

What you're really seeing is that some want the government to not only redefine marriage, but get the Churches to as well. Look at the Mormons. Back in the day, their Church recognized polygamy. Until the Gov decreed that only 1 man, 1 woman unions would be legal in eyes of the State. And when Mormons disagreed with Govt, they were punished.
Today, mainstream Mormons follow the Gov rule.
Anyway, to many religious folk, left or right in their politics, view marriage as a sacrament and one between a man and a woman. And I know plenty of blue state Catholics, Methodists etc that are socially left, but take the man-woman definition of marriage as being sacred.
The definition of marriage, BTW:
mar·riage
-noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

So it isn't a minority of religious conservatives that hold the defintion of man-woman, one of each.

I favor civil unions, and I favor them for more than just gay couples. I think if 2 people come together for mutual care/defense/resource pooling, they ahould be able to. A child caring for an invlaid parent. Older siblings who's families have passed on or passed them by. Why should it be limited to only those pairings of 2 people that love each other and supposedly have sex with each other?
Still, it shouldn't be called marriage by the State, as it is only a matter of time before someone tries to coerce those religions that disagree with the definition to get with the program. Ala the Mormons.

Then, of course, there is the old slippery slope argument. If you now want government out of marriage, and left solely to the Churches, what happens when NAMBLA finds a church willing to perform the wedding of a man and a boy? Groups like the Branch-Davidians would love to bring back the Harem. Do you want Fred Phelps to decide who get's the privledges and rights of marriage?

Still, what about the states that have put the matter on the ballot? Are the people allowed to decide? Or only when they decide in the way you prefer?

For your point about free speech, explain to your feelings on universities' speech codes?

I'll address this jem:

"But the religious right believes that government is better equipped to endorse some marriages and forbid others than either the church or the individuals involved."

Actually we want the government to not impose their view of marriage on the people. But rather let the people decide what marriage should be.

Reference this thread here:

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/12/28/the-checks-in-the-mail.php

The fact gay marriage is voted on but gets overruled in favor of gay marriage often tells me it isn't the conservatives that are trying to impose their views on the country.

Nail, meet Hammer, aka John Irving.

I agree with Mrs. Davis. Hugh's piece was at least an attempt to be thoughtful. This entry, though, is just a recitation of specious lefty talking points that few can take seriously.

OregonMuse

Leftist dogma consists of small sets of index cards... one set of ten vague feel good platitudes (ie, Peace, Love, Justice, etc), one set of ten one-word "answers" to those that disagree with them (ie, racist, sexist, homophobe, etc)

Allows them to act superior with no effort at thinking.

And then there are other "conservatives" who believe that speech should only be free so far as it doesn't offend their sensibilities or their personal beliefs. They want to amend the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag, but only the American flag - people burning other flags such as that of the United Nations or some country they don't like are just fine. Or maybe a politician is elected by the citizens, but he's the wrong religion and wishes to hold the wrong holy book in his left hand while he raises his right to take the oath of office. It doesn't matter to these people that the constitution is quite clear that no religious test to hold office shall exist, this person doesn't deserve to share a room with the upstanding citizens who believe that everyone should think and believe exactly as they do.

It has been my experience that the left has hindered the right of free speech far more than the right. They are the ones that forced the Congress and state legislatures to pass so-called hate crime laws in the name of diversity and equal rights. It looks to me like the ones that are preaching hate are so-called liberals/progressives that run the colleges and universities in this country. You can also add the likes of Al Sharpton Jessie Jackson Louis Farrekan and other various so-called minority leaders to that list.

Can you tell me where in the Constitution that says that we must scrape and bow the Unholy Nations and the communists that run it? There is none. This organization was foisted off on us by the very liberal (almost communist) Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration. The principle architect of this monstrosity was none other than Alger Hiss, a known communist and a rabid supporter of Josef Stalin.

You and your leftist friends squawk like a wounded pipe organ whenever the Bible is used to administer the oath of office, when the Ten Commandments and the cross are displayed, but it is okay for some illegal alien to be elected to Congress and use the Koran to take the oath of office. This my friend (I use the term very loosely), snacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Just a comment on the post in general.

Black Cat obviously subscribes to the idea that all conservatives are some kind of automatons for a Shadow Theocracy that is trying to seize control of the country.

I just wished instead of throwing out several different items centered around that idea, he'd actually just say it directly. Otherwise a response to his post needs to go all over the map.

Certain partisans found out that some religious groups were lusting after political power,

I don't completely disagree...

and that lust led to the illegitimate offspring which still bears the name of conservatism but follows few of its original ideals.

...but that is going too far. And to prove your point you apparently have to use hyperbole and lies.

What would conservatives think of the idea that Washington should be able to decide which unions churches should be allowed to consecrate? But the religious right believes that government is better equipped to endorse some marriages and forbid others than either the church or the individuals involved.

Even Barry Goldwater would have laughed at you for this statement. The regulation of marriage as an important institution for the continuation or civilization has occurred since before the ratification of the constitution. Now if you question whether it should be handled at a federal level, then you might have an argument. It shouldn't be necessary to amend the constitution, but liberal judges disagree and the only defense against a judge is either congressional/legislative proscription or amending the constitution. Conservatives have had little luck with the former and therefore have had to resort to the latter. BTW, I do not think that we need an amendment now, but we will need one if the supreme court were to apply the full faith and credit clause to marriage some time in the future.

Would conservatives approve of the idea that government must be consulted in matters which should be strictly the business of doctors and their patients. The allegedly-conservative senate majority leader "diagnosed" a comatose woman based on little more than a few videotapes and decided that nothing short of the Hammer of Congress would suffice to impose their choice of treatment for this woman despite the pleas of the persons who were actually involved with the case.

Congress did nothing wrong in this case. They merely authorized the federal judiciary to review the case and the appeals court gave it a pass. The move was ham-handed and against conservative principles, but hardly long lasting or destructive to the federal system.

And what would conservatives say when millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to regulate the sex lives of American citizens up to the age of 29 - the ones who are supposed to be "consenting adults?"

Now an out and out lie. What regualations regarding sex are being foisted upon people age 29 and below? Please cite the bill approved by congress and signed by the president and name the agency that regulates peoples sex live.

And then there are other "conservatives" who believe that speech should only be free so far as it doesn't offend their sensibilities or their personal beliefs. They want to amend the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag, but only the American flag

And yet the flag burning amendment has never even passed congress, even while congress was dominated by conservative Republicans. Mitch McConnell, widely recognized as the leading conservative in the Senate, has consistently voted against such an amendment.

Or maybe a politician is elected by the citizens, but he's the wrong religion and wishes to hold the wrong holy book in his left hand while he raises his right to take the oath of office. It doesn't matter to these people that the constitution is quite clear that no religious test to hold office shall exist, this person doesn't deserve to share a room with the upstanding citizens who believe that everyone should think and believe exactly as they do.

No one forced Ellison to swear upon the Bible. It was merely requested of him by one prominent conservative who is not even Christian himself. His reasoning was that the U.S. is founded upon Judeo-Christian values and that swearing in on a Bible is a symbolic gesture recognizing those values as the corner stone of our nation. There was no religious test involved; Ellison is still a member-elect of the house; nobody proposed a law or amendment to force a religious test. Your point is just laughable.

And so conservatism has moved from being the ideal of those who prize liberty above political dogma to those who would use the power of the federal government to make all of us think and act alike. And sadly for the memory of the man who believe that "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," it's left to those who now call themselves liberals to carry on his cause.

Thanks for the chuckles. I'll try to remember that liberals want limited government when Nancy Pelosi pushes through a minimum wage hike and expand the medicare prescription plan. I'm sure that Barry Goldwater would approve.

Black Cat,

At least your were sort of polite...I think you're a bit delusional though...Thus ends my response to you BC...However here's a little shout out to Hugh (the terrific poster from yesterday)...Hugh do you have friends that would consider writing the next few posts...At least until your side learns how to first find a point and then argue the point...Opinions are okay, but hopefully your buddy(ies) would be aware of some facts as well...At the very least your buds could post original thoughts instead of talking points?...Or better yet, failing any of your amigos wanting to participate, couldn't you take over and write all future post?...We miss you already Hugh...

Thanks to everyone for your comments, both positive and not so positive...

To Darlene: I'm neither libertine or Libertarian. I believe that personal morality is the basis of sound leadership in all things, but the "personal" part is important. It's not the government's place to dictate our beliefs.

To Paul Z.: You're right. Goldwater was pro-war and seemed to be anti-civil-rights (though actually, he was pro-choice on that matter) and those two things alone put him on the oppositing side to the things I believed most strongly at the time. It's only with 40 years' perspective that I realize the value of his belief in individual liberty. And LBJ's commitment to the war far exceeded anything suggested by Goldwater.

To jpm100: Rights aren't decided by plebiscite in this country, they're encoded in the constitution, and the founders wisely avoided all entanglements in this sort of thing. I believe in the separation of marriage and state, with the government's only involvement being to certify the legal "contract" created by the couple. Marriage is strictly a matter for churches.

To Oregon Muse: If it's so specious, please pick one and show me that it isn't accurate. I'm ready to discuss any of these issues in depth.

To Stan25: I agree with you completely. I don't believe in affirmative action because it's just deiscrimination with a friendlier face. AFAIC, the only "hate speech" would be when a speaker incites his listeners to commit a crime. He should then he held accountable for his share of the responsibilitity. Other than that, I believe in the market of ideas which would include many things which are anathema to fuzzy-headed leftists such as the Confederate flag. As for the UN, I think it's a great idea which has a lot of flaws, but it won't go away just because we don't like it and so we should work for it's reform, and since our share of the budget is so high, you'd think we'd have plenty of leverage. Regarding religious displays, I have no problem with them at all -- on private property. The problem with religious displays on public property is that if you allow one, you must allow them all, and that's rife for abuse by people like Fred Phelps. BTW, I was saved on December 28, 1970, and though I'm no longer an evangelical, my faith is a very large part of my life. If someone wants to hold the bible in their hand while taking the oath, that's fine with me, but don't complain if that's not the only holy book used.

And finally, a second comment to jpm100: No, I think that the public face of conservatism has been hijacked by people who are not really conservatives at all. That was the whole point of my submission. Conservatism should mean the respect for individual beliefs, but over the past decade or so, "conservatism" has become a pulpit for fundamentalist Christianity, which my favorite *real* conservative, Andrew Sullivan, calls "Christianism," and the imposition of their beliefs by the power of Washington. That's not conservative.

A couple comments were posted after I begean writing my responses, so I'll address them here:

To Adrienne: I'm not Alan Colmes. I'm not a milquetoast liberal and I'll speak my mind on the issues. I agree with Hugh that there's too much heat and not enough light in the current political climate, but I won't surrender my principles just for the sake of getting along.

To kbiel: Did you see the documentary on HBO about Barry Goldwater? One of his grandchildren (?) is gay and he had no problem with him at all. As for marriage, I'm all for it -- I've been married to the same wonderful lady for over 20 years. Stable personal relationships are important to society and what's good for the straights is equally good for the gays. I've never heard an objective argument that forbidding a legal union of gay couples does them any good, or that it has any effect on straight marriage at all. You are right about "regulate" in my comment about sex. My bad, and substitute the word "influence." But this influence is coming out of our pocketbooks and is not a proper role for the federal government. Regarding Ellison, no member of congress "swears on" any holy book. They simply take an oath. They may or may not choose to have a holy book in their other hand for the oath, but pictures of them with their hand on a Bible (or Koran or whatever...) is strictly a photo-op. Finally, and this is not directed to you specifically, but since you brought it up, I know that not all conservatives are alike, but not all liberals are alike either. I oppose persons of ANY politicians who would impose their beliefs on everyone, and I endorse those who promote liberty. I think there are benefits to a federally-operated, single-payer healthcare policy, and I think it deserves rational discussion. Clearly what we have now is not working and just screaming "Socialism!" at any attempt to offer an alternative isn't getting us anywhere.

Black Cat,
I give you alot of respect for posting on a right of center blog such as this. You will get many comments of people dismissing you and disagreeing with you.

Unfortunately, I must disagree with you as well.

Your basic point about Barry Goldwater is flawed because it is based on revisionist history. Late in his life Barry Goldwater changed from a traditional conservative a sort of libertarian. The 1964 Barry Goldwater that upset Nelson Rockefeller (in a sort of miracle that the majority of party members didn't really want) was a different man from the Goldwater "conservative" that you advance as the "ideal."

That "ideal," those ideas, has never, at any time, dominated the Republican party. Ronald Reagan wanted, but couldn't get it because he had more important priorities, small government then George W. Bush would ever want. But the GOP idea dominant before Reagan-ish Republicans was Nixonish and then Fordish and before that was held by "hold the line" Eisenhower Republicans.

Even before then "Mr. Conservative," the isolationist Robert Taft, if one looks at his voting record you will find him less conservative then Ronald Reagan economically.

Socially, Goldwater 1964 did not support overturning abortion restrictions. Left of center domestically Nixon blasted it. Ford, on the other hand, was ambivalent. Among Democrats of the time, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy were staunchly pro-life.

The time is not being described as how it existed.

Thanks Jim. I think all of us evolve politically as we get older and it's my belief that whether we start out left or right, we usually move toward support of a more hands-off government. I agree that libertarian thinking has never ruled the Republican party except maybe in the Rockies and the southwest, which is a bastion for personal liberty in both parties. Abortion is a separate topic which is too complicated to get into on this thread, but right now, there is no valid legal definition of the point where life begins. Some would argue conception, and on the other extreme, some would argue birth. As usual the truth is in the middle somewhere, and until some sort of consensus is reached about when life begins, abortion discussions will be strictly political.

blackcat,

While I believe you made some serious mistakes of both fact and logic in your piece, at least you engaged the Wizbang readers and commenters. For that reason, I vote your piece better than Hugh's pabulum. Maybe Kevin can take a survey after all the "liberal" pieces have been published to see which gets the most votes from Wizbang's readers and commenters.

"No, I think that the public face of conservatism has been hijacked by people who are not really conservatives at all."

That's exactly the way I feel about liberalism. It has been hijacked by people who are not liberal at all. They're not democratic either (preferring fascist judicial dictat to the will of the voters).

Nor are they progressive from my prospective. If you want to live in a morally bankrupt society the the actions of those on the left would be considered "progressive" as they are causing the society to progress towards moral bankruptcy but from my perspective they are regressive. I mean returning to the moral values of 1000's of years ago seems more like regress than progress to me.

I actually agree with some of the things Black Cat wrote about "conservatives" but overall the post was full of informationally retarded comments. For instance Teri Schaivo was not "comatose". And to say "despite the pleas of the persons who were actually involved with the case" simple means that you are choosing the side of her estranged husband over that of her family members who were ALSO actually involved with the case. I suppose myopia is common in both extremes, right and left, but it's hypocritical in either case and very hypocritical in your post.

Oddly enough, there are just as many, and some of the same, problems within liberalism.

"Would conservatives approve of the idea that government must be consulted in matters which should be strictly the business of doctors and their patients." Conversely, leaving this "to those who now call themselves liberals" will give us government healthcare. And if you think there's intrusion now, just wait.

"And then there are other "conservatives" who believe that speech should only be free so far as it doesn't offend their sensibilities or their personal beliefs." Again, leaving this "to those who now call themselves liberals" will give us more "hate speech" laws. If you think burning the flag is big, just wait.

"...to those who would use the power of the federal government to make all of us think and act alike." But, to leave this "to those who now call themselves liberals" will most certainly strive make sure we all live to the same standard - or they'll take it from you.

P. Bunyan, I agree with you wholeheartedly! Often what passes for liberalism is stuff like gender feminism or mindless opposition to any war under any circumstances.

This year's election, however is encouraging to me. Ned Lamont appealed to the fringe and won his primary but lost the general election. And I believe that the wider rejection of the Republican party was the same thing -- the leadership of the party no longer reflected the attitudes of the American people in general. The Democrats who won were almost always more moderate than their Republican opponents. I think that the American people are tired of extremists calling the shots in BOTH parties and would like to see a return to a time when politicians were beholden to their constituents, not special interests.

To kbiel: Did you see the documentary on HBO about Barry Goldwater? One of his grandchildren (?) is gay and he had no problem with him at all.

That's a nonsensical response. Whether someone has a gay family member has nothing to do with whether constitutionally protecting each state from the other with regard to marriage is sensible or not. Those conservatives who are for the marriage amendment support it because it keeps the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from imposing homosexual marriage upon the other 49 states vis-a-vis the full faith and credit clause. I don't support the amendment because it has not been necessary yet.

As to whether any state should or should not regulate marriage in the first place, that is another argument. You will be hard pressed to find a significant number of conservatives, past or present, who believe that each state should not impose some standard with regard to marriage.

As for marriage, I'm all for it -- I've been married to the same wonderful lady for over 20 years. Stable personal relationships are important to society and what's good for the straights is equally good for the gays. I've never heard an objective argument that forbidding a legal union of gay couples does them any good, or that it has any effect on straight marriage at all.

The argument from the conservative side has never been about whether or not state sanctioned marriage was good or not for homosexual couples or whether homosexual marriage affects any particular heterosexual couple's marriage. Their are two arguments that have come from the conservative side: 1) tradition/ancient institution and 2) marriage is really about children. I don't care for the tradition argument because it brings no facts or logic to the argument. As for the purpose of marriage, I very much believe that marriage is really about the state and/or church making sure that children are provided for. That is why we have common law marriage, if a heterosexual couple is living together, there is a real possibility of children either through choice or accident. And if marriage standards were not really about children then why does the state restrict brothers and sisters or mothers and sons or fathers and daughters from marrying? If it really just a contract between two people, then why can't it be between any two people?

You are right about "regulate" in my comment about sex. My bad, and substitute the word "influence." But this influence is coming out of our pocketbooks and is not a proper role for the federal government.

Most conservatives probably do agree with you. The problem is two fold: 1) we already had a sex eduation/propaganda program in place and conservatives decided that if we must have that program we could at least make it abstinence based and 2) we have a president who, while purporting to be a conservative, is closer to Nixon than Reagan in his view of the role of the federal government.

Regarding Ellison, no member of congress "swears on" any holy book. They simply take an oath. They may or may not choose to have a holy book in their other hand for the oath, but pictures of them with their hand on a Bible (or Koran or whatever...) is strictly a photo-op.

Completely correct. And there was nothing in the conservative ethos that would prevent a conservative or all conservatives to request (not require) that Ellison use a Bible.

Finally, and this is not directed to you specifically, but since you brought it up, I know that not all conservatives are alike, but not all liberals are alike either. I oppose persons of ANY politicians who would impose their beliefs on everyone, and I endorse those who promote liberty.

You're really starting to sound like a libertarian rather than a liberal (by either the classical or modern definition). The whole point of government is to impose beliefs upon the people. Otherwise you have anarchy. Now, if you want to argue whether a particular belief is beneficial to society and/or whether it should be imposed by the federal, state or local government, then we can talk.

I think there are benefits to a federally-operated, single-payer healthcare policy, and I think it deserves rational discussion.

It does deserve a rational discussion, but at what point do we look at what is happening in England and Canada and decide that their health care system is a disaster? For someone who is all about liberties, why do you want to force everyone to use your preferred method of health care financing instead of letting the free market rule?

Clearly what we have now is not working and just screaming "Socialism!" at any attempt to offer an alternative isn't getting us anywhere.

For every person you can find that 'just scream[s] "Socialism!"' when debating about a national, single payor health care system, I can find five who will debate you point for point with facts and figures. And it certainly is not clear that what we have is not working. I really don't see how people can say that when almost every important medical innovation in the last five decades was created by the U.S. health care industry. What isn't working is this crazy experiment with PPOs and twenty dollar co-payments that we started in the 1970s. The market is starting to correct that and one of the few things that Bush has done regarding health care, HSAs, is really helping.

>>: 1) tradition/ancient institution and 2) marriage is really about children

Slavery is an ancient institution as well but more rational thinking defeated blind obedience to tradition. And my own belief is that marriage is about the couple. Children are a blessing, but do not define marriage. Close relatives are forbidden to marry because of the increased chance of genetic problems, so there is an objective as well as a religious basis to this prohibition. As for "anybody" marrying, that would be up to the churches, not the state. As I said before, the state's responsibility is about inheritance and other contractual-type issues.

>>: 1) we already had a sex eduation/propaganda program

True enough. The whole idea of "safe sex" equalling a condom is a lie. It's SAFER sex, but it's not an excuse for promiscuity which is how many fuzzy-headed liberals treat it. We need to tell the kids that abstinence is best, but it's wrong to stop there with no mention of contraception and means to minimize the risk of disease.

>>You're really starting to sound like a libertarian rather than a liberal (by either the classical or modern definition

Philosophically, I'm a liberal. Pretty much across the board, my personal beliefs are left of center but I believe that the best way to promote them is by dialogue, not by mandate.

>>The whole point of government is to impose beliefs upon the people

Here we differ radically. The point of government is to ensure the rights of every citizen. The only time that it would "impose rules" would be when one person sought to deny the rights of others whether it would be to steal his property or to define a person's spirituality or lifestyle.

>>but at what point do we look at what is happening in England and Canada and decide that their health care system is a disaster?

At what point do we look at our own and recognize that it, too, is a disaster as more and more people find that healthcare is simply out of reach or that a medical emergency can ruin them financially for life? BTW, I've spoken with many people from Canada who are quite happy with the system there. I will not argue that it's perfect, but their's is one system we can look at -- for better *and* for worse -- in the effort to improve our own.

>>every important medical innovation in the last five decades was created by the U.S. health care industry

We have the best medical system that money can buy. But if you don't have the money, you don't have the care and to me, that's the problem. It's not accurate to say that all the bells and whistles which distinguish our medicine are readily available. For tens of millions of Americans, the best they can hope for is very basic treatment in the emergency room.

If someone proposed tort reform as a fix to the health care system, I would not "scream socialism", but if someone proposed the Hillarycare program of the early 90's I would (well I wouldn't "scream" it, but I'd say it) because that's what it was plain & simple.

Many, if not most or all, of the "solutions" the left tends to come up with are socialist and I don't see why simply pointing out socialism when we see it should be a conversation stopper. Instead why don't you try to explain why the modern American left can make socialism work given the fact that everytime it's been attempted on a national scale in the history of the human race it has cause far more harm than good.

No, I'm pretty much against all forms of socialism, EXCEPT if they wanted to socialize the legal system (i.e. all laywers become government employees and get paid the same hourly rate regardless of how much they win for their clients) I'd be behind that socialist idea 100%!

So far the Lefty guest blogger score is 0 for 2.

Sweet nothings yesterday and typical Liberal boilerplate today.

Nothing new or interesting.

"But if you don't have the money, you don't have the care and to me, that's the problem."

This is simply not true. No way no how. It's against the law for hospitals to not treat someone because they can't pay.

One of my clients (I'm a social worker of sorts) even got breast implants for free (because she simple never paid the bill) but that's an extreme example.

Sorry Black Cat, but from the looks of the initial post, you have no principals just slogans...Never really compared you to AC or even thought of you as being AC...Now that you mention it though, you are more like him then you could ever imagine...Your too sensitive for your own good...If you can dish it out, then you should be able to take it...You're entire post was meant to insult conservatives...It's a sport for liberals...It doesn't work and even your responses to the responses are still boiler plate...would love to see what you have to say after you've spent some time (a) getting to know a few conservatives, (b) actually thinking through what it is you don't agree with us on and (c) engage in a common sense debate/conversation regarding these issues...Of course a bit of kindness and respect can get you quite far...

Happy New Year!

Black Cat,

I should also say that after you've flushed out some of your points and responded to other responses, I do think you are pretty reasonable and appreciate that you would even ventured over to Wizbang...So Hughs post was a little, let's say fungible, but I think we have to first stop talking past each other...Both of you deserve cudoos in that department...I pray that you won't retreat (and from the looks of things you won't) from us...

Again enjoy your New Year!