They do! The poor are poorer, the middle class more worried about their standard of living and that of their children and the wealthy are almost as wealthy as they were during the Gilded Age.

The frequent hysteria over global warming and could-be apocalypse is openly stupid; it is not surprisingly an excuse (“rationalization” isn't merited) for interventionism to the point of collectivist totalitarianism.

That quote comes from nowhere except the political right wing. I'm tired of lies and misrepresentation.

More like not using a large enough wrench or other tools because we were too cheap or inept.

This, from someonewho has called me “far right” [sic] if I object to liberal excess, and engaged in other hype and other fantasy (such as the plutocracy versus the peasantry)?

[rolling eyes]

I also take issue with how we are conducting the GWOT. The Bush administration has it all wrong in trying to douse the terrorist networks with the military in the first place. Terrorist grps are not armies per se, they are networks of saboteurs. In operation, at least outside of their home countries, they work much more like organized crime than anythign else and thats how they need to be fought. I.e – the FBI, the CIA, and most importantly by working with their sister organizations in our allied counties. Frozen assets, arrests, plea bargains to get the higher ups and throw suspicion around the organization, thats how they need to be fought. Fight espionage with espionage.

So far our military has done nothing but fertilize the ground from which terrorists sprout like weeks. Its not that fault of our military that al-queda and other terrorist grps are still so functional, but the fact they are an operation the military isn't meant to fight. Like trying to fix a leaky pipe by smashing it with a hammer.

You read his post. He does not seek to persuade. He seeks only to insult any who don't agree with him and ascribe to them only the worst possible motivations. Then he attempts to deny his appropriate place on the political spectrum. Can anyone really respect someone so utterly and constantly insulting of only one side of the political debate who then decides to claim to not be on “the other side”? Sorry, I don't buy any of it.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/898a4550-d90d-11dc-8b…

Agreed. And as it has been shown elsewhere, health care isn't even that big right now; the economy is #1 and Iraq #2 above the other issues. Health care rises and falls. If a lot of people begin to lose their jobs and health benefits that go with those jobs, we may see health care rise again.

The practical window for this was at least 6 months ago and won't logically reopen for another 10.

With the possible exception of healthcare, I believe this election will be decided by Iraq and the economy. McCain has about 20 campaign speeches on healthcare already, so now is not the time to reinvent his candidacy. The other 2, ironically, will be more decided by time and events than by what the candidates have to say about these.

…Left frequently overreacts and reacts wrongly.
…The frequent hysteria over global warming and could-be apocalypse is openly stupid
…idiocies such as an anti-obesity program,
…This is not what any intelligent person would want as an alternative

This is not what any intelligent person would want as an alternative, which addresses instead what Thomas has stated from the beginning: saying “No” to what's wrong (and to children of all ages who want what's wrong). Conservativism has an inherent negativist as well as often-pessimistic nature and what's needed, and what the GOP has failed to accomplish so far, is to remain against what's wrong, but present some positive and positivist offerings to people (more freedom; economic growth, real, not make-work, job growth; security from terrorist vermin and our other enemies) to get them to take the GOP seriously and consider them more often as a real alternative to the Democrats. They have to become substantially different from the Democratic Party first, though.

I'm also curious as to why we should be promoting larger families. And why should the government have any say in how many children a person has? Isn't that sort of government intrusion on private lives exactly what conservatives claim to be against?