AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

No, they are not. And I'm not going to respond any more unless you have something more interesting to do than argue definitions.

Cycloptichorn

"Methamphetamine has become the most hazardous drug issue of small-town America," according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. It apparently hits small towns more than big cities.

The state of Alaska is experiencing a raise in the availability of crystal meth. Small toxic laboratories continue to be discovered throughout the state of Alaska. The pseudoephedrine reduction method is the usual manufacturing method used for methamphetamine. Availability seems to be rising, both from local laboratories and from meth mailed or shipped into the state by various ways of transportation, mainly from the Western Unites States Alaska, along with other states in the Seattle Division.

Crystal meth represents the biggest drug problem in Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California, a distribution hub; Hawaii; Kansas, where home labs are increasing; rural areas of Kentucky; Montana; Nevada; North Dakota; Oklahoma; Oregon; Texas, which is another distribution hub for Mexican meth; Utah; Washington and Wyoming.

It is on the rise in Colorado; Florida (esp. in central FL); Georgia,\; rural areas of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri; Idaho, where it either is imported from WA labs or from CA or NV which imports the drug from Mexico; Louisiana; western and northern Michigan; Minnesota; rural Nebraska; New Mexico; New York, where locally made drugs are becoming dominant; North Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; West Virginia and rural Wisconsin.

If a state is not explicitly mentioned, it is because the use of meth there is low.

My point is the same as three pages ago. Liberal either means "tolerant of change" or "pro liberty", and modern left-wing policies are neither. They are statist (against liberty) and most of the policies are the current status quo (per definition conservative).
You explained that the left fulfills the "tolerant of change" definition because they inherit the "tolerant of change"-label by promoting policies that historically represented a willingness for change, even if these policies are the status quo today.
And you claim that the left fulfills the "pro liberty" definition by some mysterious undefined "modern" definition of liberalism. If the definition changed, why are you still referring to the original definition from wikipedia?

That sounds like other reports I've read about Wasila.

MM wants a report from tomorrow's news!

There was an active drug culture in the US before any hippies were born. Jazz musicians used marijuana and heroin since the 1940s.


There are no hippies now and there haven't been any in a long time.

okie is probably jealous of the fact that most of the posters here are more articulate and more sophisticated than he is.

You are totally wrong when you say this:



Modern left-wing politics are both tolerant of change and seek to achieve the maximum liberty for all.

Many of the policies they have pursued have become the Status quo - because we liberals have been very successful over the last 50 years, and that's only accelerating - but that makes them neither Socially nor Fiscally conservative.

Modern leftists are pro-liberty, in that they seek equal application of rights for all. Modern rightists are anti-liberty, in that they seek the opposite. It was right-wingers who fought against rights for women and minorities, and who are now doing so against Gay Americans.

I strongly suspect that you, like many right-wingers, only equate Liberty with 'being able to keep as much of my money as possible, and do business with the least number of regulations.' However, if that is your belief, you are incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

Most federal records on drug use date to 2005. If the Huffington Post's article is only two years old, that beats the feds.

You obviously have never taken a college level course in government or political science and haven't read a good, general text on politics at any point in your life.

That business about change is something that people use to answer the questions of 8 and 9 year olds.

There are academically accepted definitions. You and okie seem to disregard those definitions and substitute your own, the sort that young children use.

There is no such thing as economically liberal.

Sure there is. Liberals are big spenders to solve any problem with more government programs and their inherent spending.

Actually, I once started a thread to discuss and define this very subject of how the issues define liberals and conservatives. If anyone is interested, it is here, wherein I used 21 key issues and defined them according to how liberals and conservatives generally stood on them.
http://able2know.org/topic/67312-1

Republican Obstructionism in the Senate is at an all-time high.



Obama is going to have to start recess appointing judges if this foolishness continues.

Cycloptichorn

If he would quit appointing radicals, things would change.

None of the people he has appointed is a radical at all, Okie. And your comment is ridiculously shameful, and you know it. Republicans aren't blocking these judges and cabinet members and various members of boards that Obama has nominated for any reason other than the fact that they can, and that it mucks up his ability to run the nation.

Cycloptichorn

Your definition of radical is certainly not the same as mine. My comment is not only not shameful, it is absolutely correct. Obama now has a pretty well established history of appointing radicals.

Your comment that they are obstructing appointments because they can is total hogwash. When they oppose judgeship appointments, they are doing it on basic idealogical grounds, which is absolutely proper, right, and admirable, because that is what they should do.

Bullshit! These aren't just judges, they are nominees to run all sorts of different agencies.

And you have no clue at all why they are being held up, yet feel that you can comment that they are being held for 'ideological reasons.' You're talking out your ass.

Here's GOP Senator Shelby - he put 70 nominations on hold so that he could get pork for his home state:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6177399-503544.html

Sessions blocked 20 nominees yesterday because he feels that Obama's nominees are moving 'too quickly.' Not for any other reason. What a piece of **** Jeff Sessions is.

Cycloptichorn

I trust what the Congressmen say far more than what you say, cyclops. I do not consider your posts here credible. I do not believe at all that they would hold up appointments without good reasons. You make a serious allegation, which you have just pulled out of your partisan you know what.

By the way, was Van Jones an example of an appointment they opposed because they could?

Excellent reasoning by Sessions, good for him. One thing we do not want is Obama pushing through his appointments without properly examining their merits. Much of the time, the appointments are really bad ones. Lets see, how many communists or Marxists has Obama tried to appoint by now?