Unlike other “be nice” threads, this one will be about events not personalities. If you are a “liberal” do something nice for a conservatives (as a group), if you are a conservative, do something nice for liberals also as a group. I'm up for anything. Persons not designated liberal or conservative should feel free to chime in at will.

Since I am a "liberal," I'll start with this tidbit for conservatives.

For those conservatives who don’t already know it, Ronald Reagan’s Diary was released yesterday. It’s in a book store near you.

Enjoy!


http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Diaries-Ronal...7651&sr=8-1

Generally I believe in being nice only if your being honest at the same time. Its hard to see eye to eye with many liberals in turn often an honest opinion results in a heated debate, but I never was a big believer in political correctness. So I just come out and say what I feel without individually attacking anyone, and thats the key, you cant jump on someone personally when you don't know them.

However I'm quick to admit to being wrong when I am, and revealing when I do see eye to eye with a liberal. I agree with liberals in general on the importance of taking Global Warming seriously, although many conservatives also take it seriously it seems to have become a major talking point amongst liberals in particular. I usually have a stand up and try and do the best you can kind of attitude in general, with about everything. This war, The boarder, and Global warming are all examples of things we should not turn our backs on no matter if we are liberal or conservative. These are all important issues we face and a conservative should not be afraid to admit that Global Warming is major concern for us and even consider it might in fact be the fault of humans, at least in part , but at the same time a liberal I think should take the same type of "take it seriously" attitude they do with Global Warming and apply that to the war on terror. Both issues to me are major concerns that many on the left or right can easily dismiss if it is not as strong a concern for their particular political party of interest.

I call myself a conservative primarily because I simply agree with them on more issues, but I'm not afraid to tell the liberal when they make a good point.

In a general sense, I like conservatives. For any issue of the day, I believe there is a legitimate discussion to be had, asking the question: what role, if any, should the government have and at what level?

Without conservatives, especially on this board, those discussions would be fairly brief, and far less useful.

I subscribe to the principles of the Whig Party Platform of 1852, except Article Eighth which was rendered nugatory with the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in 1864, and the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Suffice it to say that I am a very, very traditional conservative. Mine is the party of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. The last person of my party to be elected President was General Zachary Taylor. (Vice President Millard Fillmore, who succeeded him in office on his untimely death, was not reelected.) “Old Rough and Ready” rubbed many people the wrong way. He had little patience for politics and none for southern secessionists, who he threatened to deal with in the same manner as he did with deserters from his army in the Mexican war. It was no idle threat either, as he promised to personally lead the army to quash any rebellion; and under his leadership, it would not have taken four years to put an end to it. Indeed, the southern politicians were so afraid of Taylor, that many historians believe that they had him poisoned, although it has never been proved.

By the bye, BoF, you should be more careful who you quote. The the above quote [“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety.”] was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), which was attributed to Benjamin Franklin in the edition of 1812; however in a letter to David Hume of September 27, 1760 regarding the publication of the first edition, Franklin denied that he wrote it. One might credit it a good motto even without the attribution to Franklin. Contrariwise, Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty, the right to do as they wish, for security. See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). And, considering the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, betting odds are that Hobbes was right.

Nemo,

The line was in a letter sent by the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial Governor of Pennsylvania on November 11, 1755. Franklin was a member of The Pennsylvania Assembly. My only doubt was whether Franklin or another assembly member penned it.

On 5-31-07, in an effort to find the answer, I e-mailed H. W. Brands, author of The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, Random House, 2000, who now teaches at the University of Texas.

I asked him if he thought Franklin wrote it. I got a response today (6-2) and here's what he said:



I stand by the citation for the sig line.

I have always had great respect for "consistant conservatives"- those that stick with the values whether thier party is in power or not. I would call out Dayton Rocker for the archetype of this person- DR did not throw away his ideals of personal responsibility for behaviors, fiscal responsibility, both personal and by goverment, and some other god and country stuff-because the person had a ® by his name.

I will always have great respect and listen closely to those views, and read carefully a poster with consistant values posts a link- Mrs P is such a person as well- she actually, when she lists her views, seems left of center to me, but will post a contrary argument with linked proof to something she very well may believe it- in other words, she doesn't buy the crap her own side dishes out either

A person that bends thier ideals to fit the behavior of the person they have in office loses credibility, whether right or left.