Yes, they do when they are based upon ideology. I propose that what we try in the future is a discussion, not a debate. Debates rarely go anywhere, the reason being that no one wants to be declared the "loser." They will continue to argue from their first premise if only to avoid capitulating.

Much of this "debate" has been Red Herring. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have nothing to do with the decisions that George Bush Junior has made.

Also, why must the term liberal be demonized? Classical liberalism is what gave us Democracy and Capitalism, two things that modern Republicans extol. Furthermore, the term conservative means "resistant to change" (my paraphrase and quotes), why must new ideas always be wrong? It is preposterous logic and a dangerous position take.

Also, don't let the media fool you. The "Culture War," is a non sequitur. I think that most of us agree on many fronts, it is only on things like "gay marriage" and "abortion" that we disagree (I put these issues in quotes because they should be non-issues; we can't shackle freedom). Meanwhile the American Government takes our money and doesn't help the poor, or allow everyone medical treatment, or give the money back to the elderly; no, the rich recieve twice as much money as those that are on welfare with subsidies and tax breaks. These are the issues upon which we should unite, and fight.

What's wrong with being conservative? You make it seem as if resistance to change is always wrong, which is a completely false assumption. If we don't respect the past and the way things were done, what kind of future can we expect? Unless we follow up and try to at least structure ourselves as our ancestors once did, we're making a mistake.

Our country has had an overwhelming number of conservative presidents compared to liberals, in fact Republicans are up 5 on the Democrats, 18 to 13. Another interesting discovery I have made is the legend that Republican presidents leave behind compared to Democrats. FDR and JFK are the most infamous liberal presidents we've had other than Bill, and beyond that, no one remembers what Grover Cleveland did, and no one cares about what Jimmy Carter did. However, if you look at the impressive list of presidents on the conservative side, you will find Dwight D. Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Ulysses S. Grant, and of course good old Abe Lincoln. I'm not saying that it's appropriate for anyone to pick a side based on this, but it is something that liberals need to remember when petitioning something for the sake of argument, like always. It would be ideal for our president to hold views from both sides, because both sides have equal faults and equal high points. Our third, fourth, fifth, and sixth presidents were able to do this, and could possibly be the best sequence of presidents this country has ever seen. Since then we've been lucky to get two presidents back to back who do a great deal for their country. I guess what I'm trying to say is that though Republicans don't always accept change well, it's not worth bringing up every single time a discussion occurs because we've all heard it before, and it's a lame argument. The same goes for Republicans calling liberals weak, which is kind of true, but still, without liberals we wouldn't have a lot of ideas that we have today that are shared and accepted by both sides.

We should all learn to respect eachothers opinions and find a way to improve the way things were done, not forget. If we didn't have Republicans trying to run the country like it always has been and Liberals trying to bring in new ideas, we would be in an imbalanced place as any third world country.

If we don't respect the past and the way things were done, what kind of future can we expect? Unless we follow up and try to at least structure ourselves as our ancestors once did, we're making a mistake.

I happen to disagree. What if we don't respect the past? Certainly one civilization will not be able to get from point A to B without the building blocks of the past, but that is quite obvious and I certainly didn't say that we must make an immediate departure from our current system. What I am pointing out is the contrast between the connotations of "liberal" and "conservative"; liberals aren't always portrayed as being what the very definition of "liberal" actually is ("conservatives" get a bad rap as well-- the media must find caricatures because it then becomes easier to define the sides, not caring that no one fits a textbook definition). Personally, I want to be constantly moving forward, constantly honing our system and I think that to be entirely conservative is counterproductive to that end.

When I say conservative I don't mean the person that gathers all of the evidence and makes a reasoned, cool decision. I mean the person to whom change is anathema, and that will refuse any kind of progress/change.

You're not describing a conservative, you're describing a dictator.

It looks like someone needs to get their news somewhere besides CNN. When terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in the early 90's we did nothing,then they bombed our military baracks in Germany and we did nothing. Then they bombed our embassy in Sudan we still did nothing. Then they bombed the USS Cole and guess what we still did nothing. So what did they do - declare war on the USA. They flew planes into the World Trades Center, flew a plane into our Pentagon and killed innocent civilians in a field in Pennsylvania. Lucky for us in the meantime we had changed Presidents and this time we fought back. Maybe the war in Iraq isn't a textbook war but give Bush credit for the fact that terrorist attacks on our soil have stopped.

I haven't said anything about the war in Iraq. Please don't assume that you know what I think if I haven't expressed it.

Also, to the man with a hamburger as his avatar, my dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary: Third College Edition, gives as it's second definition of conservative: tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any changes in these, so my description was not extreme.

I know you're mad about Democrats losing in all of the elections, but please don't take your lack of balls out on me because I'm more conservative. As for your definition, the first word in that sentence is "tending". It means that though some conservatives may resist change a little stronger than others, it doesn't mean that every single person with those beliefs are like that. Your stereotyping in this case leads me to believe that you're lack of political confidence is deeply rooted in your liberal ways.

I said this in an earlier post about sterotypes:
""conservatives" get a bad rap as well-- the media must find caricatures because it then becomes easier to define the sides, not caring that no one fits a textbook definition."
I think that speaks to the fact that you aren't reading my posts or you are simply being captious.

Also, why must we talk about my lack of testicles? That is not something I like to talk about publicly.

Well this is cute.

I guess we could talk about the weakness of 215 this year all around the state and how every single person is worse than last year.

That's true. Everyone at 215 this year was bad.

Finally, you've made a post without any lies in it. Congratulations.

chris dont forget though Grant was in a big time scandle so he probably wasnt one of the better ones

I don't understand what you're saying one bit.

Thank you for the congratulatory remarks.

Also, the State Tournament at 215 in 2003-2004 was unbelievable. It was almost like the Olympics.

I think you are talking about me, when you say someone has been getting info from CNN. I look at this open minded. Many times I go along with who the president is. I am not saying there should be terrorist. You are sounding like the people who get mad if you talk about the war and say that they don't support the troops. I am saying that you can't keep comparing things that aren't even together. I have seen and read when they tried to bomb the trade center before and all you listed. When I call Bush a short bus it is not because of this War. It is the way he presents himself and you can tell when he is telling B.S. I have looked in to things with School, Health care, S.S. When ever anyone says somethinga bout Bush everyone jumps to the war. If you read his ideas many things are geared towards people with money. You can see where he came from and tell that he has other motives.

Well he got his subsidzed oil tax bill passed. He sure loves him some oil.

Was he really stressed getting back from his millionth vacation in months.

Well someone has to feed the cows or is it the Fat HOGS... Thats where the "PORK" comes from.