I thought we had a President like that already.

I think McCain's whole program relies on bumper stickers and sound bites.....if it takes more than a sentence to describe, it is a democratic program.

The Soviet Constitution is a lovely document. Doesn't mean anything.

"The Soviet Constitution is a lovely document. Doesn't mean anything."

I have the same feeling about McCain's web site.

But you can tell them apart?

Since I don't read Russian and don't have a translation....not really, although I can tell you that little of McCain's plans will be remembered two days after the election, either way.

Some definitions.

McCain is a somewhat middle-of-the-road capitalist politician in a religious party.

The Soviet Union was (and will reassert itself to be) a criminal regime with Marxist excuses.

BHO is the candidate of a socialist party, with no track record.

BHO is the candidate of over half the voting population with 10 years of accomplishments as an elected official, 10 years of teaching constitutional law and a record of having run a better campaign than the machine that was originally going to win in a walk.

Socialist party? Only to someone looking to avoid a discussion of issues and hoping to reduce the election to bumper stickers.

Calling the republicans a religious party is closer to the truth, since it is obvious that Dobson and other people pretending to do "God's Work" do have an inordinate amount of power. Then there is the NRA and a fair number of business CEO's who exercise their share of influence.

Middleview...NOT. On one hand you say to label Obama as socialist party is a ploy to eliminate discussion, and yet you are happy to label the repubs as a religious party, and I am sure you are convinced it is. The Repubs do take stands against abortion and the Gay movement on moral grounds. If you are equating moral ground with religious, as you probably do, you are mistaken. This country is fast becoming a secular, non-religious country, but it can never become a country without morals. Democracy cannot exist without morals. You may want to argue that, but a simple example is if the majority are immoral, and lets say want to rob a "rich" person, and they all agree that it is OK, then property will not be safe. Morals do not equate to religion, otherwise atheists would all be immoral people, and we all know that isn't the case. I think the repubs is a brake against runaway leftists. (I wish I knew how to paragraph on the fray) I also think you are overstating the "over half the population" voting for OB. I thought that what elections are for, nothing has been determined yet and I think you'll be surprised. I guess the NRA is the lefts Planned Parenthood. I thank the NRA for helping keep our Constitutional right to bear arms. The left clucks would be happy to give this right away, so when they all vote together to rob the rich, the oppressed will not have recourse. See the right to bear arms is the last line of defense against an oppressive government, it's a means to keep them somewhat in check. It isn't for self-protection or hunting. It is so the populace will not be left defensless agains a runaway government. Looks like it may be time to start cleaning ol' betsy up (just kidding, sounded like a good line).

20th & 21st Century Conservatives use the Republican Party to express themselves. Conservatism itself is a mindless demand for tradition, whether that means religious or secular. In the religious arena, conservatives are anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women, sometimes anti-ethnic but not always coherent when doing so. After many years, conservatives have also adopted much of FDR's New Deal program, now that it has also become a tradition, but the 19th Century prior tradition was Capitalism, and there remains a strong national defense posture and sense of American values as True Values.

20th & 21st Century Liberals (sorry, the politics that dares not speak its name, I meant to say Progressives) use the Democratic Party to demand tolerance -- for abortion, for gays, for women, for ethnics (easy to get lost in Identity Politics) and never met a Liberation Movement they couldn't water-down. Having brought European-style central-planning to America, they demand a slow increase in government regulation, paid-for by a weak national defense, because American values (and no values outside of the Party, just as Conservatives believe there are no values outside of the Church) are worth fighting-for.

Either one could lead to bankruptcy. Choose your poison?

Reality Bites ~ I am sure you don't really believe half of what you say. Tradition is not mindless, THAT is a mindless thing to say. Tradition is just based on repeated discplines, that have proven to be useful over time. Traditions do change albiet slowly. All cultures are based on traditions and that is the glue that keeps society together. I dare say we wouldn't have civilization without traditions. To say that consevitives have adopted FDR is blasphamy, how can you say that. He has been the foundation of just what conseratives think is wrong with our government, too much of it. Please enlighten me as to what policies we have adopted. I also would find it hard to believe that "progressives" as you want to call them, demand a SLOW increase of government. It always feel to me that they dive head long into it and always look to government to solve ANY problem, whether it is a problem, a precieved problem, or not really a problem at all. Other than that, I can agree on some of your other points. After all, in the end we all drink the poison, one way or another.

I think that as entitlements are a major part of any government deficit, conservatives would have lowered or eliminated these to a fraction of their current levels, along with many other programs that liberals consider mandatory. Conservatives would expect the free market and voluntary charities to produce whatever finances are required to make up the difference to the extent that the economy can truly afford such programs. Liberals (of recent vintage, not the 19th Century kind) would expand all programs as a stamp of morality, because they dislike the Capitalist tradition and believe in central controls as in the European model.

The fact is that Americans have gotten dependent on government in good times and bad. No politican will tackle this issue regardless of Party.

Regarding tradition: tradition evolves. There are "patriots" of the Colonial Period, of the Revolution, of the Mexican War, of the Civil War (Between the States?), of the Industrial Age, who would not understand one another, and haven't understood each other since.

Absent a divine manifestation, Truth in the political arena means the voluntary free association of persons in their own self-interest. Therefore, no use of force, and no endless mooching. This is alien to the major political parties at present.

Reality~ Nicely done. Lately I have to use the term conservative as the republican party has lost it's way. It should be the capitalist party and for less spending and less gov. programs, but alsa, as you say, the American people are addicted to it and don't have theslightest urge or idea how to release themselves from the trap. Enjoy your day, and someone please tell me how to make a paragraph in here. I use shift enter, but that doesn't work either. What's the secret??

Since when was the democratic party about a weak national defense? If you look at military manpower you will see that our active duty forces were at a peak during Reagan's first term and have declined in each administration since. The largest increase in defense spending was during Johnson's years and we had about 4 million active duty at that time. We have exactly the same number of troops now as we did in 2001 when Bush took office and he started two wars in the meantime. That is hardly the way you make the country stronger.

Who demands a slow increase in government regulations? Evolution of the nation and the economy make those rules necessary. It isn't like somebody has a list of new regulations and an agenda as to when to put them into law. In New England, particularly in Conn. you can see the results of no zoning laws. Factories next to homes. In Pittsburgh, for many years, there were no laws about what you could dump into the water. There were additional laws that controlled oil speculation. The republicans removed those rules. See what happened?

The comment "runaway leftists" is a betrayal of the reality that you don't see the impact of the opposite, the runaway capitalist. The man with no moral compunction when murder is needed to preserve profits. If you doubt the problem has existed, look into the Ludlow massacre. It is too bad that the miners didn't have the same kind of weaponry that the Colorado Guard did.

Your attempt to include a lecture on morals is silly. Do you presume to tell me that the republicans are the party of morality? This is the party that chose to accept a candidate who spread rumors about John McCain in 2000. They said it was ok to slander a former POW.

You really are clueless. When has anyone voted to rob the rich? It is more frequently the rich robbing those with less. Think about Lee Raymond getting a $500 million retirement package at the same time that his company comes up short $1.2 billion in payments to the pension fund. Think about Enron. Who robbed who?

You think you need your gun to protect yourself against the government, but the fact is that you are talking about being prepared to kill members of our armed forces, isn't that true? You would probably be the first person to say you support the troops, yet you think that they could be used against you. Explain that little discrepancy for me, please.

I appreciate your Robin Hood thinking. The costume is a riot, too.

Here's an analogy for you: in real estate, the owner of a condo owns their actual apartment. There is a governing board for the building, but true ownership exists and apartments can be bought-and-sold. Alternatively, the owner of a co-op might own a share of their building, but not the actual apartment they live-in. It is merely the apartment the governing board permits them to occupy. Their share of the building, if sold, might go back to the governing board without turning a profit.

The difference between the two different governing boards is the difference between two societies. In the first, you work, you save, you negotiate, you buy, you manage within the rules of an agreement, you sell and hopefully realize a gain on your investment. In the second, you work, you save, you buy, you are given instructions, you sell and hopefully get your savings out.

Apply these standards to the entire economy and you have the difference between your philosophy and mine: citizens versus subjects. There are a lot of people who refuse to work their whole lives and be given orders by a Counsel of Wise Men, especially when folk like yourself will chose them. Moreover, if you want to expand the social safety net (and you will) to include more-and-more services, these must be taken in taxes from people who would have spent their own money differently, and from government appropriations in other areas. It’s the old guns-versus-butter argument: a nation can’t have a military and a consumer sector, which is why the Soviet Union had a military and shortages of everything else. You want a social safety net, and you can't afford a military.

As this nation is at war, you need to do one or more of the following: (1) consider our enemies beaten (2) consider our enemies overrated (3) consider our allies not worth the effort (4) consider America the enemy.

You know which of these already inform your thinking.