Ten oz

This is how I once viewed myself. Fiscally conservative and Socially liberal. More I followed politics the more I began to wonder if either classification truly existed as stances that could be without conflict. For example:Is raising the minium wage a social issue or a fiscal issue? Is providing Healthcare a social or fiscal issue? Is the Social Security program a social or fiscal issue? Is corperate personhood a social or fiscal issue? Is Climate Change a social or fiscal issue? Is Afghanistan and Iraq a social or fiscal issue? There is a lot of overlap. Worse still is that we (USA) have a two party system. So it often feels like a choice between the better of two evils. For me, I identify the two party system as absolute. Because for now I feel it is. Beyond the rhetoric of any campaign politicians are either Democrat or Republican. They will yield to the will of there party. They will no matter the issue be opposed by the other party. This makes it naive, IMO, to vote for the person and not the party. So as a fiscal conservative who is socially liberal which party do you most feel represented by? For me that was tough question to answer. So tough I realized I was not a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Neither made sense when comparing the two party we (USA) have.

Eisenhower passed the Federal Highways act in 1956. One of the biggest govt public works projects ever in this country. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su10.cfm Eisenhower advocated to congress for Universal Healthcare. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10399 Eisenhower warned of the "Military industrial Complex". http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later Yes the party is very different today. However you said that the Tea party can not be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower when the truth is Reagan can not be compared to Eisenhower. Reagan deregulated the Banks, slashed taxes championing trickle down economics, and was the Military industrial complex's best friend. Forget govt provide Health Reagan closed all the community mental hospitals. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/ Bush 41, Dick Cheney, Anthony Scalia (first federalist Judge of supreme court), Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc, etc were all part of Reagan's administration. Reagan armed the Taliban and Armed Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Revolution as many Tea Party crazies like Michelle Bachman calls it is the reason why there is a Tea party today. Reagan was that shift in the party. That is a interesting qoute from Kennedy but I think if you start looking at actually policy Kennedy was more in line with the Democratic party of today than Eisenhower, Nixon, or Ford were in line with the Republican party of today.

What issues do you consider yourself conservative or liberal about?

6 corporations own 90% of the media. Just 30 yrs ago it was 50 corporations. Media isn't just cable news either.http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 Left-wing media vs right-wing media is a fallacy. All of it is corporate media. As stated in my previous post, Conservatives are corporatists. By conservatives I mean Republicans. Moderate Democrats are as well. In my opinion there is actually no difference between the Democratic party today and the Republican of 30yrs ago. Policy wise Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford would be Democrats today. Even Bush 41 fits more in the Democratic mold. Deregulation of banks the 80's, growing strength of the Federalist Society in our courts (corporations are people), and global free market economics have transformed the current Republican Party. Oddly the Libertarian wing which was once seen as the far right wing of the Republican Party has chosen to stay associated. The tent no longer seems to fit them. Libertarians with their legalize pot, anti world policy, aniti increased local police militarization, and anti lobbyist in Washington views are probably better fit into the left wing of the Democratic party today. The anti corporatists, environmentalists, and anti *nuclearist were driven out of the Democratic party by the Kennedy and Clinton Democrats years ago. *Nuclearist is not a real word.

@ Dekan, I am far more cynical about what motivates Conservatives than you are. Concerns over welfare have little to do with immigration policy IMO. The United States like most other wealthy countries use a steady flow of immigrant works to supplement industry with wages low workers. Immigration policy in a sense, IMO, is a form of corporate welfare. In wealthy middle east countries like UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia supplement their work force with immigrants from places Pakistan and India. In the United States we supplement the labor force with people from Central and South America. Disenfranchising immigrants by Keeping them from having citizenship or worker visa. It prevents them from having the rights or protection under law. Conservatism is really just a form or corperatism. They hide behind false debates as a means of pushing their own agendas. For example; Everyone knows climate change is real. United States, Russia, Canada, China, and so on are all battle for rights to the resources becoming availible in the north as a result of climate change. While battle over rights, moving assets north, and fielding contracts and bids from corperations Conservative politicians take to the podium and claim climate science in incomplete. They bold face lie because there is too much profit in maintaining the status qou. I don't think conservatism is a mild form of insanity. However I do think it is driven by anger and greed. Two things which history has proven to be very strong motivators.

I agree that baseball is the most likely sport to lose some of its audience to soccer but I disagree about why. Baseball like football is more expensive to organize. You need several different sized bats, different gloves for different positions, a specifically arranged field and so on. Soccer can be played on any flat surface indoor or outdoor with nothing more than one ball. As for attention deficit in modern society you allude to I think every generation feels that way. Prior to the industrial revolution it was common for people to farm a healthy portion of their own food. I am sure those humble farming generations would view people living in the 1950's (Republican's idealic America) as lazy, glutinous, and vain. It is all perspective. Generations that grew up without cable TV, video games, Internet, and vast expanses of paved areas to ride: bikes, skateboards, scooters, rollerblades, heelys, etc, etc obviously had more time to play a slower paced position game like baseball. I don't see it as a bad thing that youth today no longer have the time for such. Times have changed youth today have far more options.

Soccer will continue to grow in the States. I think less and less parents want there children playing Football as an ever growing amount of research is linking football to brain injuries. Soccer is also easier and cheaper to organize for kids than Football and Baseball. Less equipment, less specialization in position, and can be played just about anywhere. I doubt Soccer becomes the number one sport here in the States in my life time but it's audience will continue to grow throughout my lifetime. This is just another stupid thing Replublicans need to shutup about. Seems like Ann Coulter is looking to replace the myth of the black athlete with the myth of the Latino athlete.