It is currently defended by brain-dead lying whore Ann Coulter.

Haha... I would never ever defend Ann Coulter. She is truly a lunatic. But do enjoy how the right dismissively rolls its eyes at their raving lunatic liar, and the left embraces theirs (Michael Moore).

Because it protected a status quo that held entitlements for the rich, the land owners and the industrial base. Abolitionists were the equivalent of peaceniks in the 1960s and communists in the 1920s.

The industrial base was certainly in the North, no? Anyway, I will make my point again and leave it at that... I don't think support for or the fight again slavery fell along party lines. It fell along geographical ones. But if you blame the republicans for slavery you must also give them credit for eliminating it. One can't have one's argument both ways.

I have no idea what you mean by equating abolitioninsts with communists. I re-read that sentence ten times and still don't get it.

Punishing criminals makes sense. Punishing them (and by extension everyone in their circle) to ridiculous, arbitrary extremes for the sake of appearances is socially destructive.

I personally don't believe that putting criminals in jail is "for the sake of appearances", and I don't believe most of the left in America thinks so either.

But the rest of us who are pre-emptively put at risk ...

You include yourself in this argument. Can you provide an example of how the war on terror puts you, personally, at risk?

Honestly, most of your points are well thought out, and I honestly believe we can have a difference of opinion. The difference is that I can say that without branding you a nazi or a fascist or prefacing my argument with "you're still evil but....", unlike the current psychosis of the left. Ten years ago, arguments on both sides were much more rational. Now, it is just depressing.


Finally...

We are only better than other countries when we stick to our most noble principles

You better stop talking like that... it sounds very very conservative. Someone is going to accuse you of being from the right

he was stuart smalley, right?

His best stuff was on SNL with Tom Davis in the mid-late 70's. You kids missed it. He isn't that funny now.

I personally don't believe that putting criminals in jail is "for the sake of appearances", and I don't believe most of the left in America thinks so either.

no, but putting criminals in jail for an exorbitant amount of time so you can tell your district you're 'tough on crime' is absolutely for appearances, as are mandatory minimums which say the inexpensive form of cocaine: crack should create stricter penalties than the expensive form.

You include yourself in this argument. Can you provide an example of how the war on terror puts you, personally, at risk?

this question was not addressed to me, so i will answer it. every citizen of the united states can have their phone, home, or business bugged by the government without a judges' consent or even the gray area of probable cause. this is unlawful search, anytime anyone is denied constitutional rights we are all at risk.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and Abraham Lincoln was a conservative. When you see just how horribly far he was willing to go to preserve the Union, you would have to call him the staunchest conservative in American history.

If only (if only!) George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice were conservatives. The Bush presidency has to be the most radical in our history. I'm not even sure a Lyndon LaRouche presidency would be any more radical.

this question was not addressed to me, so i will answer it. every citizen of the united states can have their phone, home, or business bugged by the government without a judges' consent or even the gray area of probable cause. this is unlawful search, anytime anyone is denied constitutional rights we are all at risk.

I haven't read the complete act, but I do not believe this is true. The way I read it, before the patriot act, the FBI could obtain wiretaps for fighting various crimes, and the patriot act added terrorism to the list. I found a quote from Senator Joe Biden :
As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) explained during the floor debate about the Act, “the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What’s good for the mob should be good for terrorists.â€

the threshold for proving links to a notorious mafia family is much higher than the threshold for clandestine and autonomous terror cells. i'm not saying the job is easy or the government shouldn't act when they feel necessary, i'm saying the government has in no way proven that they are worthy of having a blank check to investigate anyone who takes pictures of bridges or buildings, or is a member of a liberal organization but would like to attend a campaign speech by the sitting president.

Al Franken is not funny, but it isn't because of Air America. It is because he isn't funny.

you don't think al franken is funny, i know this isn't the website to cite grammys as proof of excellence but he has won grammys for his books and emmys for his television writing. he was instrumental at snl during its best period. he's funny, you may not think so but you may be wrong.

House Committee on Un-American Activities: The biggest piece of shit witch hunt ever. Read The Crucible. While this is set in Salem,Mass it pretty much is Arthur Miller's anti HCUA play. This committee is directly responsible for many of Hollywood's brightest stars being ousted from the Silver Screen. Alot of the people accused were Jewish as well. Oh and this rules as well, Ronald Reagan personally went to the committee to rat people out. I also suggest those who haven't seen The Front with Woody Allen to do so. This film was done in 1976 and a good number of people who worked on this had actually been blacklisted from Hollywood because they wouldn't name names. Another similar movie is Guilty By Suspicion starring De Niro.

you don't think al franken is funny

Totally. I will concede that point. I misspoke. I loathe statements that promote opinions as fact. One slipped by me. So let me rephrase....

I do not think Al Franken is funny, but not because of his politics.

he's funny, you may not think so but you may be wrong.

Ahhh... I see... so YOU are allowed to state opinions as fact, but I'm not. Very 'left'.

Ahhh... I see... so YOU are allowed to state opinions as fact, but I'm not. Very 'left'.

which part of "may be" was stated as fact?

Republican, Democrat - the party names are misleading to the history of Right vs. Left political theory. The party names switched political bases during the Civil Rights era.

It is good to frame this switch by contrasting North and South, Republican and Democrat, Right and Left. (This contrast is admittedly a broad generalization.)

Lincoln and his party did indeed run under the Republican heading - this was then the party of the Northern states (anti-slavery, Left).

The Southern (pro-slavery, Right) states were Democratic until the Democratic party backed Civil Rights during the 60s.

That's when our Southern citizens turned to the Republican (up until then the "Northern" and Leftist) party.

So, the Republicans today saying that they are "Lincoln's party" is disingenuous. The parties switched their political poles, much as earth's Northern and Southern magnetic poles have switched a couple of times over the past zillion millennia. or whatever.

Feel free to check me on the above - I haven't had enough coffee for my memory to work error-free today. Okay, a quick google fit: [url]http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_074900_republicanpa.htm]4th paragraph[/url]