It is has always been objectionable to me that people would support someone like Soros as the brand for honesty or at least free market liberty, while castigating someone like Bush who actually went out and cut the orders to create real free markets and liberty where none had existed before.

To EC, Soros has been making the big money just by sitting around and not using his power and influence to manipulate the currency markets based upon some personal anecdote from EC’s perspective. But to EC, Bush and company have been extensively using their power to corrupt the office of the Presidency, America’s Civil Rights, and various other things ongoing.

EC might want to take his own advice about how people shouldn’t be against Soros just because Soros funds propaganda groups opposed to conservative beliefs. Certainly EC is against Bush precisely because Bush has extended the free markets to Iraq and created real human liberty where none had existed before.

1. Prager exercises his constitutional right to attack those views to which he objects in a public forum (radio). Somehow, you and your fellow travels seem to equate his criticism of your views with using the government to shred your constitutional rights. Feeling oppressed, are we? In fact, it sounds as if you would deny him his right to express those views.

2. “Examples would include a religious litmus test that he called for after a Muslim elected to Congress wanted to be sworn in on the Quran; or his attempt to prevent reconfiguration of the California state seal after courts found the use of a Christian cross on the seal was unconstitutional; or his opposition to equal partner rights for homosexuals”.

Sorry, Echiconne - Prager’s objection to Islam is not that it is a religion but that it is also a political system that is in and of itself anti-Constitutional. Re. “the State Seal”, perhaps his position is that the First Amendment does not force the state to remove religious symbols but in fact explicitly states that the free exercise of religion shall not be infringed. Allowing militant atheists to attacking the historic seal of Los Angeles on the basis of it portraying a crucifix (reflecting its historical origins) might reflect “infringement”, don’t you think? As far as opposition to gay marriage, that never was a constitutional right. I can look all through my copy of the Constitution and find a single reference to gay marriage, much less marriage.

The opposition to the Massachusetts court decision was that it was based on legal fiat rather than legislative action. “Marriage” has a historical and legal definition with profound and nationwide legal, social and religious implications - changing that definition may ultimately prove to be legitimate but, if so, it should be put forth to us riff-raff, knuckle-draggers and all (i.e., voters), don’t you agree?

“they seek to move the country back to an era in which a country has a state religion, monolithic culture, politically homogenous media, restrictions on sex education and lack of recourse to courts.”

Echiccone - this is so over the top it really doesn’t merit comment, except a suggestion that you might want to bone up on history.

“George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, George Tenet all made intentionally misleading statements in the run-up to the war, as has been widely documented.” - sorry to inform you, MoveOn.org, Kos World, Sheehan and Code Pink do not constitute credible sources of documentation.

If these individuals (including back into the Clinton administration) made misleading statements, it is because they were based on the best intelligence available, If Saddam Hussein had been more forthcoming, perhaps the intelligence would have been better. Too bad - he gambled, he lost. Oh well.

But what the hey? No need to worry about that big bad world out there. Settle down, take a nap - no bad shall ever come to the Hobbit Shire, right?

http://www.quotedb.com/authors/benjamin-franklin

find “liberty” or scroll down.

all made intentionally misleading statements in the run-up to the war, as has been widely documented.

Let me clue you in on something, EC, since you don’t seem to be getting it, regardless of all your purported attempts to communicate with the Other.

When conservatives or even just some other Democrat or moderate or Libertarian thinks about “documented”, they don’t equal it with “polls that suggest”.

What people believe is true and what is true is totally unrelated. What people are made to believe and what becomes true, are of course related, but that’s not the same thing as the previous sentence.

This case, in your case, seems to be that you are arguing that they have been documented as being deceptive because polls show that people believe that they were proven as being deceptive. The other argument seems to be that polls show that people believe they have been documented or proven to be deceptive because they were documented or proven to be deceptive. They being Bush and your list.

This is about extending the power of the central government at least as much as it is about protecting us from attack.

Bush could have gotten Congressional votes for the War Powers Act after 9/11. He didn’t. Unless he is grossly incompetent and blind, anybody out to extend the power of the central government, as opposed to worrying about the future abuses of Presidents via Executive war powers, would have grabbed that War Powers Act up as soon as he could and did to his political opponents what FDR did with those same powers.

This view is profoundly at odds with Bookworm’s idealistic views of minimal government conservatives like Thomas Jefferson.

Many things are profoundly at odds with each other. For example, your view of the world and of history and the psychological profiles of certain leaders are “profoundly at odds” with Bookworm’s. So what’s two negatives multiplied together? You say “this view” is profoundly at odds with Book’s views. I say your view of “this view” is profoundly at odds with Book’s views. Two negatives means “This view” is not profoundly at odds with Book’s view because your view of “this view” is profoundly at odds with Book’s view.

We can replace Book’s views with mine if it works better.

And Ben Franklin certainly would have disagreed with the neo-cons’ new balancing of constitutional rights with security, based on his famous quote: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

You get a big fat x on historical accuracy.

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader605

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Ben Franklin or by a book’s author, which Franklin published.

Liveleak when they discarded Fitna to purchase some additional, temporary, security for themselves from Islamic Jihad fanaticism, had to give up the essential liberty of freedom of speech. Which is so essential, the Colonies demanded that it be put into the Bill of Rights and as the first one too.

Based upon your faulty view of history and historical characters, you may even end up thinking that the Iranian puppet Al Sadr deserves liberty and safety because the Iraqi federal government gave up the liberty of Basra not to be invaded and turned into a war zone for a little temporary safety from Sadr.

Franklin’s favorite quote is called a lie when people knowingly misquote it to back up their propaganda.

You must be talking about the two Confederate governments, not the United States Constitution. Confederacies place high priority on fragmenting central power to prevent a central government from arising. The US Constitution was made with an entirely different set of priorities. Instead of weakening the central government, it provided for a strong central government balanced through three triangular legs.

And that government’s primary job is indeed to protect the people of America from external enemies, invasions, military powers, foreign princes and potentates.

When you have a better law that has a higher track record of success than the Patriot Act, go ahead and propose it. However, you have to deal with the reality that the Patriot Act has overseen several counter-terrorism successes inside the US in addition to preventing terrorist attacks.

Now you may think some people may be convinced by your line that they should trust you to flip the coin that decides how much external factors will change their lives because things needed to be adjusted “back then” during elections and the formation of the Patriot Act in your view, but it’s not a gamble I particularly care for.

I have the benefits with me now from a gamble, now you want to go back in the past and talk about changing things so that things will come out different, or “better” in your view? I’m not sure a person should take a 50/50 chance on bad things happening in his life just cause you don’t like the Patriot Act, EC.

but it should be done very carefully rather than under the political pressure of looming elections (which is how the Patriot Act was passed and extended).

The fixation on the past and this nostalgia about how good things could be if you went back there and changed things, is pretty irrelevant to saving lives, EC. The present and the future is what matters. Getting stuck on the past is perfectly okay with me, so long as you are doing it to yourself only.

In case you hadn’t noticed, EC, but “communicating with the other side”, to paraphrase you, is meaningless on an objective standard when all your historical assumptions and views are based upon Leftist diatribe and misapprehension.

I took them right out of his article.

No, you see, what had happened was that you saw Prager’s words and then interpreted them in your brain based upon all these Leftist diatribes you’ve integrated and historical mistruths you’ve learned. Then you pulled a couple of conclusions from your interpretation and put them here on the comments section. You didn’t “directly take them” out of his article. You didn’t even quote anything he said.

Try not to talk about pulling stuff directly out of a material that you have already processed and interpreted according to your techniques and mandates.

Bush and Cheney believe that the tragedy of Watergate was not that a President sought to put himself above the law

Leftist diatribes begin with talking about your political opponents and speaking for them in a fashion that really just says what you want them to say or what you believe they believe. Nowhere do you accept that you are wrong about Bush or Cheney’s beliefs. Nowhere do you recount personal meetings with Bush or Cheney in which they have answered or recollected about their beliefs concerning Watergate. No, everything you believe and say is processed from interpretated data and facts, but you talk about such products and conclusions as if they came from the mouth of Bush and Cheney. They never did.

I don’t know if that is just cyclical economic trends or not.

The usual Democrat mantra is that the Bush economic expansion is the first where the income of the lower and middle class did not rise as the economy roared, and that in fact they lost ground. If that actually is true - and I am having trouble proving it one way or the other - then Republicans really are in serious trouble this fall. A wave of blind repudiation of Republicans by the Democrats and Independents might be in the works. By “blind” I mean that what might happen is not a repudiation of Republican arguments; rather it is a refusal to even LISTEN to those arguments as they’ve already made up their minds that they’re just sick and tired of em and want to see how the “other guys” do.

Add to that a general Republican dispiritedness, and we have a recipe for trouble in November. How do you break through with your arguments if in fact too many people are going to simply refuse to listen?

As to Dennis Prager, I agree with all of his points, and strongly agree with most of them. That was a wonderful article.

I agree that the majority of Americans didn’t agree with Bush on immigration policy, but this is not the leading issue they are concerned about when polled–especially when you control for job security. The government spending issue only is important to conservatives and libertarians, not the majority of the country. Most people will take all of the government help they can get right now, this is what the polling data has shown for the centrist Reagan democrats, which is why Hillary is offering full coverage health care for all and a repeal of the gas tax.

On the Iraq War, the majority of Americans are against the war, as most every poll has shown for the last two years. The majority wants the troops out, not more aggressively deployed.

Finally, on the so-called intelligence leading up to the war, the fact that the Democrats were as irresponsible in their evaluation of the data is not proof that it wasn’t sexed up. You say this is a canard, but you offer no proof other than the word of Pelosi and company. C’mon, who is being disingenuous with that line of argument??? George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, George Tenet all made intentionally misleading statements in the run-up to the war, as has been widely documented. Those that contradicted them were smeared or outed. And ALL of their data was proved wanting. Now, you can argue that they made an honest mistake if you like, but they have not even admitted to that. I happen to believe that the yellow cake, meetings in Prague, now-refuted British and Italian intelligence were all part of a carefully orchestrated plan to exploit outrage over 9/11 to invade Iraq even though no connection between the two existed. The majority of Brits and Americans agree with me (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-03.htm; http://www.democrats.com/bush-lied-polls; http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:JCB6cSGCtGEJ:www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp%3FARTICLE_ID%3D34930+poll,+believe+Bush+lied+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us). What polls are you looking at that suggest that the majority of Americans are for more aggressively prosecuting the war or that the majority of Americans believe the intelligence was not tampered with?