How Can You Ever Trust a Republican With the Economy?

[mykevermin]

Not just now, but ever. Let's take a look at a few indicators, if you please.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/4656/debtrealdollars19402009kl1.gif (http://imageshack.us)
First, the national debt. Fairly constant from the beginning measurement period (1940) for the next 36 years. It goes up a touch under Carter, and then really begins to take off under Reagan. You see the slope begin to stabilize by the end of the Clinton administration (where it rounds off as if it wanted to go flat again), and then ZOOMS TO THE MOON under Bush.

If you do some broad estimates at that chart, it appears that Democrats were in office for less than $2.5 Trillion of our overall debt (approaching $9.4 Trillion at this point, and projected to eclipse $10 trillion by the end of 2009).

Y'know what? I'm busy today. Take a look at the charts put together on this excellent webpage (http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html), and you'll see just how amazingly inept supply-side economic policy is based on the combined 20 years of Reagan, Bush, and Bush - and that you should be skeptical of anyone suggesting that cutting corporate taxes helps the economy. Because it isn't.

So let's not think it overly simplistic ways that make us think "Republicans want to cut taxes, so they're fiscally responsible, and Democrats want to raise them, so they're terrible, horrible people who want to take our money." Because I see, and have seen, no evidence whatsoever that Republican fiscal policy is a sound thing to ever rely on. The national debt is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the widening gap between the wealthy and middle class/poor in America is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the price of commodities is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, the "jobless recovery" is the first Bush recession is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy, and the recession we're currently in is an indictment of conservative fiscal policy.

So let's ask a real question here: Why would you EVER trust a Republican to handle the economy?

[Ikohn4ever]

no I wouldnt, here a little more data to look at

Job Creation
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 10.5 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 11.6 million new jobs
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 12.4 million new jobs

Total: 33.6 million jobs created over 12 years, or 2.8 million jobs per year

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 5.2 million new jobs
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 10.8 million new jobs
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 2.6 million new jobs
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.2 million fewer jobs
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 5.5 million new jobs

Total: 24 million jobs created over 19 years, or 1.3 million jobs per year

Government Spending
How much did the government spend for every dollar of revenue?
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: $ 1.16
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: $1.25
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: $1.01
Democratic Average: $1.16
Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: $1.31
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: $1.38
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: $1.34
George W. Bush 2001-2004: $1.27
George W. Bush 2005-2007: $1.24
Republican Average: $1.29

The difference between $1.16 and $1.29 may not seem like a lot, but the impact on the national debt is huge, especially when you consider that $1.29 applies to 19 years, and the budgets under this president are so much larger.

Increases in Government Debt
Growth In Debt Held By the Public [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.2
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.7
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: -0.3

Democratic Total: 0.6

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.6
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.7
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.9
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.9
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.1

Republican Total: 4.3

The financial markets only pay attention to the amount of debt held by the public. This is the number that helps drive down the value of the dollar and makes bankers nervous about inflation down the road.

Growth of Debt Held By "Government Accounts" [$US trillions]
Jimmy Carter, 1977-1980: 0.00
Bill Clinton, 1993-1996: 0.4
Bill Clinton, 1997-2000: 0.8

Democratic Total: 1.3

Ronald Reagan 1981-1984: 0.1
Ronald Reagan 1985-1988: 0.3
George H.W. Bush 1989-1992: 0.5
George W. Bush 2001-2004: 0.8
George W. Bush 2005-2007: 1.4

Republican Total: 3.0

Debt held in government accounts is very much a misnomer. Debt, in the real world, is a fixed obligation to make a payment on a specific date. Not so for debt held in government accounts, according to this White House. The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes." USA Today, August 3, 2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm)This subject warrants a separate article, but, there, in a nutshell, is the basis for the Republicans' "Social Security Reform."
In very simple terms, what happens is that the money contributed by everyone into Social Security, intended to build up a surplus to fund the baby boomers' nest egg for their retirement years, is actually used to reduce the government's reported deficit. Is it a huge scam? You bet. President Clinton, anticipating the problem, proposed some kind of undefined "lockbox" to prevent the pillaging of the Social Security surplus that's taken place under the current White House. Of course, the Republicans shot that down.
Anyone who speaks of a crisis in Social Security is really talking about a problem that can be laid at the Republicans' doorstep. It's not class warfare, just simple arithmetic.

Sources:
Job Creation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm) Seasonally adjusted nonfarm payrolls, calculated on calendar years
Government Spending: OMB (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf), On-Budget Outlays divided by On-Budget Revenues
Increases in Government Debt: OMB (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf)

[BigT]

First, the national debt. Fairly constant from the beginning measurement period (1940) for the next 36 years. It goes up a touch under Carter, and then really begins to take off under Reagan. You see the slope begin to stabilize by the end of the Clinton administration (where it rounds off as if it wanted to go flat again), and then ZOOMS TO THE MOON under Bush.


You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph... Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.

[Msut77]

You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph... Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.

Are going to even attempt to argue that the National Debt and/or deficit has gone down at all in the past few years?

I would really like to see this, the popcorn is going in the microwave right after I type this.

[davidjinfla]

Americans don't trust either party with the economy. They wrongly believe that a tax break for those making over 200,000 some how means everyone gets a tax break. Same with a tax increase.

[Msut77]

Americans don't trust either party with the economy. They wrongly believe that a tax break for those making over 200,000 some how means everyone gets a tax break. Same with a tax increase.

Last I checked the Democratic party is more trusted than Republicans on the economy.

Although I agree with you on the second part.

[davidjinfla]

And is the cost of the war even in those figures?

[BigT]

Are going to even attempt to argue that the National Debt and/or deficit has gone down at all in the past few years?

I would really like to see this, the popcorn is going in the microwave right after I type this.

Do you even read my posts... or do you base your comments on what you have imagined that I wrote?

The original post is a gross oversimplification. It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...

But, I do agree with the main premise that the Republicans of today spend way too much money.

[Msut77]

Do you even read my posts.

Yes, specifically "You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph."

Unless you are going to argue the projections are significantly wrong (and you really do not have a leg to stand on) then what is the point of that part of your post?

FYI Inflation/The weakening Dollar did not get to be that big of a deal until 2-3 years ago. A huge part of the reason for its decline is Bush's policies.

It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...

Oh please he has quite a lot of power, especially considering a Republican Congress gave him whatever he wanted (including raising the debt ceiling 4 times). And this is not just about W he is after all merely following the same Republican playbook Reagan had and McCain will follow.

[mykevermin]

Do you even read my posts... or do you base your comments on what you have imagined that I wrote?

The original post is a gross oversimplification. It's not like the president has supreme power to raise or lower debt at will. We do have congress (which was Republican controlled for most of the Clinton years) plus fluctuations in the economy and major world events that change expenditures...

But, I do agree with the main premise that the Republicans of today spend way too much money.

Sure, but keep in mind that Bush outspent Reagan's 8 years of cumulative deficit spending (I don't know if you're old enough to recall how outraged people were by the national debt in the 80's, but I think you may just be old enough) in 5 years.

And control of Congress did not return to Democrats until early 2007.

And the majority of war expenditures (half a trillion by now, at least, with no signs of slowing or stopping) are not included in the budget, as they are voted on separately, as 'needed,' throughout the year.

[elprincipe]

To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.

[thrustbucket]

To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.

I agree with this.

It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".

So the only conclusion I can come to, is the same one as elprincipe. Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.

[Msut77]

It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".

Bush is not a new president nor is looking at Reagan's numbers "fracked" or "screwed". Try harder.

[pittpizza]

Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.


Yeah, except the D train was on track and actually gaining some domestic good, while the R train was loaded with dynamite, bombs and other explosives to "give" out internationally.

Not really the same thing at all. One train does good while the other does evil. (Yes, starting wars is evil.)

[mykevermin]

To answer the question, I don't trust either party farther than I could drop-kick them. Both parties have horrible fiscal records, especially when you consider Congress has as much if not more influence over spending and look at control of Congress over the years in addition to the presidency. I would agree that the worst years for fiscal were under W. and the GOP Congress, no doubt, since they used the excuse of 9/11 to run up the ol' charge card some more for their kids.

This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.

I agree with this.

It's also worth notiong that many fiscal changes/policies take years to start gaining momentum. So that skews all of that data. Some plans can take 2-4 years, thereby totally fracking the next presidents "numbers".

So the only conclusion I can come to, is the same one as elprincipe. Both parties together are high speed trains into fiscal nightmares, just different routes, especially if you read the wish lists for all three current candidates.

Meh, this is a tired excuse I've heard before. There is undoubtedly some element of truth to the idea that some policies take hold in the longer term, at the same time that fiscal expenditures for that fiscal year are voted on, and spent (or overspent) during that year. Nevertheless, the link I've posted, and the data ikohn culled from CBO data, all show DATA. Instead, you offer up another undemonstrated and hackneyed response? My feet are getting tired of the same old dance, thrust. C'mon, already. Give us some data. Something to work with.

The larger patterns show that the large bulk of the national debt is the responsibility of Republican presidents. Minimizing the differences by saying "both parties are irresponsible" is nonsense.

As much nonsense as the GOP talking point of "every time you cut taxes, tax revenues increase." Because I implore you, or anyone - PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE - find me a year-to-year *decrease* in tax revenues. You won't find one at all, which ruins this nonsensical talking point: tax revenues go up every year irrespective of tax cuts.

[t0llenz]

Tax cuts not coupled with spending cuts are ridiculous and not going to work. That's why John McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts at the beginning. I just wish that instead of letting his view change over the years, he just stuck with that rather conservative view on it.

Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't govern conservatively. You can argue at length about whether what they spent was worthwhile or not...but the fact remains that all three President's spent a bunch of money. Reagan and old-man Bush, at least eventually, saw some tax increases to deal with some of their spending. Bush the Younger doesn't realize that sometimes you have to raise taxes if your spending is critical...or at least if you think it's critical. But, back on point, yes, they spent a ton of money, much of which they didn't have. Clinton governed more conservatively and, when you look at the makeup of Congress at that time, it makes sense. With more fiscally minded members of Congress, including Newt Gingrich, bipartisan agreements were built and the budgets were balanced. That coupled with the fact that the two branches were in different hands, thus forcing competition between them AND preventing either side from wasting excessive amounts of money that we didn't have...and our government worked more smoothly. That's the problem with one party ruling both Congress and the White House which is part of the multitude of reasons I want McCain in the White House. I'd rather have Congress and the President butting heads so that less excess is spent than them all just working together to waste everyone's money.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The Republican presidents spent so much defeating communists and terrorists.

The Democrat presidents didn't share the load.

[thrustbucket]

As much nonsense as the GOP talking point of "every time you cut taxes, tax revenues increase." Because I implore you, or anyone - PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE - find me a year-to-year *decrease* in tax revenues. You won't find one at all, which ruins this nonsensical talking point: tax revenues go up every year irrespective of tax cuts.

Well I won't, because I don't really care. Imo, the headline of this thread should have "politicians" replacing "republicans" to carry more weight.

Besides, I will concede that Republicans have not been conservative, especially fiscally, since before the 80's. No news there.

There has not been such a thing as a true conservative primary candidate, that I know of, in my lifetime (since mid 70's). So as far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference between parties as time goes on.

Not really the same thing at all. One train does good while the other does evil. (Yes, starting wars is evil.)

Woah there. Did I just hear you say Democrats do good? Wow, how nice it would be to see politics in such a polarized way. That's why I envy Sean Hanity.

If starting wars are evil, isn't funding proxy wars evil? Isn't participating in existing wars evil? And especially, isn't having policies that create wars down the road evil?
They are all evil, son. Both parties. And I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe one party is good and the other is evil. That's 4th grade political talk.

[pittpizza]

First of all, I'm probably older than you, and even if I'm not, I'm not your "son." K?

Who is polarized? Any person of any party ought to view war as evil, and when you're the force starting it, yeah, thats evil. I don't give a shit what administration does it. Participating in WWII was not evil, and what are these policies that create wars of which you speak?

Is it peace, or diplomacy that starts wars? I'd say neither since the Bush Admin doesn't know the meaning of the terms.

[BigT]

Tax cuts not coupled with spending cuts are ridiculous and not going to work. That's why John McCain didn't support Bush's tax cuts at the beginning. I just wish that instead of letting his view change over the years, he just stuck with that rather conservative view on it.

Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't govern conservatively. You can argue at length about whether what they spent was worthwhile or not...but the fact remains that all three President's spent a bunch of money. Reagan and old-man Bush, at least eventually, saw some tax increases to deal with some of their spending. Bush the Younger doesn't realize that sometimes you have to raise taxes if your spending is critical...or at least if you think it's critical. But, back on point, yes, they spent a ton of money, much of which they didn't have. Clinton governed more conservatively and, when you look at the makeup of Congress at that time, it makes sense. With more fiscally minded members of Congress, including Newt Gingrich, bipartisan agreements were built and the budgets were balanced. That coupled with the fact that the two branches were in different hands, thus forcing competition between them AND preventing either side from wasting excessive amounts of money that we didn't have...and our government worked more smoothly. That's the problem with one party ruling both Congress and the White House which is part of the multitude of reasons I want McCain in the White House. I'd rather have Congress and the President butting heads so that less excess is spent than them all just working together to waste everyone's money.

This post really does a great job to summarize the situation, as opposed to simply yelling: OMG, Republicans are EVIL! Democrats will be a panacea! (and vice versa).

Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.

[BigT]

(I don't know if you're old enough to recall how outraged people were by the national debt in the 80's, but I think you may just be old enough) in 5 years.


Nah, at that time, I was quite young and not yet in the USA. Besides, I was putting up with another retarded government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_Poland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity

From my perspective, the fact that there was no food on the shelves in stores and that the government had a few of my family members on trial slightly outweighed the fact that the Americans had to pay a bit more for gas and were concernerned about their debt... ;)

[Msut77]

This post really does a great job to summarize the situation, as opposed to simply yelling: OMG, Republicans are EVIL! Democrats will be a panacea! (and vice versa).

Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.

Do you care to respond to what I wrote instead of to an argument no one made?

[thrustbucket]

Our 2 party system is more of a distraction and diversion for the populace than anything else... I agree with the assertion that the best thing that can happen to the government is to create a healthy competition within the braches of government such that it becomes more difficult for either side to do anything (e.g., Republicans wasting money on ridiculous wars and Democrats redistributing income and promoting socialist policies). The less they can do, the better.

Well said, sir.

[elprincipe]

This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.

I wouldn't say equally irresponsible. At different points in time either party has been more irresponsible than the other. Of course, it mysteriously seems to coincide with that party being in power and wanting to dole out the cash to buy votes (of course, when you actually think about it, buying our votes with our own money, hmm...).

[thrustbucket]

I wouldn't say equally irresponsible. At different points in time either party has been more irresponsible than the other. Of course, it mysteriously seems to coincide with that party being in power and wanting to dole out the cash to buy votes (of course, when you actually think about it, buying our votes with our own money, hmm...).

That's something I was thinking about on the long drive home today.

Really, there are two layers to this country. 1) Each of us. 2) The politicians we elect.

It seems that WE actually have power. But WE tend to elect politicians that pretend they care about the country as a whole, but none of them do. What the politicians REALLY care about is making you as the individual happy.

What can the politician give you, from the U.S. Government/Treasury to make you happy and want to vote for him again? That's really all it's about. That's really all they care about.

So ultimately it's our fault, because we keep electing the politicians that bribe us best for what we think makes our own individual lives better, and not the country or what it stands for better.

Everyone hates socialism, until they start getting the free stuff.

[BigT]

Yes, specifically "You do realize that the graph is based on economic data up to 2003, right? 2004-2009 (the sharp slope at the end) is based on projections... so you can't really make those conclusions based on that graph."

Unless you are going to argue the projections are significantly wrong (and you really do not have a leg to stand on) then what is the point of that part of your post?

FYI Inflation/The weakening Dollar did not get to be that big of a deal until 2-3 years ago. A huge part of the reason for its decline is Bush's policies.



Oh please he has quite a lot of power, especially considering a Republican Congress gave him whatever he wanted (including raising the debt ceiling 4 times). And this is not just about W he is after all merely following the same Republican playbook Reagan had and McCain will follow.

Let's keep it simple; I made 2 points in my first post:
1.) 2004-2009 on the graph is based on projections.
2.) The graph does not acount for inflation.

Both of these are, to the best of my knowledge, correct. I made no value judgements. The point of the post was to point out that the original graph has its limitations... you took it a step further and imagined that I wanted to argue that the deficit is actually decreasing under Bush and that the projections are wrong. On the contrary, I agree that Bush's spending has been excessive.


Inflation has been going on for a very long time; usually, as estimated by the consumer price index, it runs at about 3% per year and recent years have been no different. We'd have to go back to the '79 oil crisis years, to reach a time when we had double-digit inflation. Still, dollars from year to year are not equivalent and should be adjusted for.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=0

[mykevermin]

...and they are adjusted for in other charts in the link I provided in the OP.

As for 2004-2007 deficits, I'll have to find the actual data there. As I said, since Bush out deficit'ed 8 years of Reagan in 5, there should be no lofty expectations of that curve in the OP (or an inflation-adjusted one) looking that far from reality.

[Msut77]

Let's keep it simple; I made 2 points in my first post:
1.) 2004-2009 on the graph is based on projections.

It is completely irrelevant that some of it is based on predictions.

That is not a limitation, unless of course you wish to argue the predictions are fundamentally wrong.

And you apparently do not so this part of the discussion is over.

Inflation has been going on for a very long time

Yes, thousands of years in fact. You seem to think you discovered it and as myke pointed some of his charts are already adjusted for it.

[speedracer]

Plus, I don't believe that the dollars represented in this graph are inflation adjusted.
It's not really fair to adjust for it when the policymakers pursued the weak dollar policy for precisely this reason... I mean, it would be to their credit if all this other crap surrounding the economy had worked out the way they thought it would. Ownership society or something, right?

Like everything else, it blew up in our faces.

[LowOiL]

The last conservatives (fiscally) were during the second term of Clinton.. The "Contract with America" was awesome and worked for a while till they fragmented...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

Clinton had other economy help from spending nearly his whole term downsizing the military (and kissing China's butt)... Coupled with a tool that was awesome... "Line item veto" was given to Clinton for a short term by conservative held congress (until deemed unconstitution)... Thus spending was great during Clinton's last term... Too bad it fell apart...


But even with that great few years, the economy turned sour the last few months of Clinton's term (following Bills bright idea to sue Microsoft)..... but not blaming Clinton entirely here .. the economy dips and dives no matter who is in office. People tend to get tight during Presidential changes and it is a fact that a tight butt populace can drive an economy at least short term no matter what.

Now we have a sub economy of illegals that supports a leaching nation to our south and not one candidate with any balls to do anything about it (yes, I include Bush emphatically too here). Dims are kissing illegal butt left and right and McCain pushed one of the biggest butt kissing illegal legalization bills last year too.

This country has gone in debt during war a few times... but somethings are worth going into debt over... Dims controlled the prez seat during the start of WW1 and 2 eras and even Vietnam... but again, I don't care if we mortgage the house to get good weapons in our soldiers hands.

One of the biggest proponents of the Iraq war has been Murtha... but you ought to see his spending bills he proposes bringing home huge bacon on war contracts to his state. I guess the thread's author neglected to mention that fact...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzcjFSPdFFQ

I just wish Clinton had the balls to deal with Iraq when it was smaller instead of letting it fester. It's not Bush's War. It's Saddam's War. Saddam never once honored the 1991 surrender agreement (UNSCR 687) which included the complete verification of disarmament. It is US Law to overthrow the Saddam Regime as signed into US law by then President Clinton under the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

President Clinton
Oval Office Address to the American People
December 16, 1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." =============More==================

Interview with Bill Clinton... (yeah it is long)...
Source: The Atlantic Monthly March 2003 by James Fallows

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/clinton.htm

The '91 authority gave them [the current Bush Administration] authority to take military action. But they can't do it now because we're under these '98 restrictions on the inspections, which had been accepted. We need to be trying to deal with the substance, the product, which is the chemical and biological weapons and the nuclear program. But the process [is] needed to further international cooperation and do it within the context of trying to build the UN. Because if you just do the first without the second, the price would be truly extraordinary.

Now, on the occupation thing, I have a slightly different take. [From the Atlantic cover "The Fifty-first State," which he is pointing at.] My view is that we ought to be there but it really ought to be as internationalized as possible. Just like we did in Kosovo. Including the Russians and OPFOR [opposing force] and whatever. Let everybody do it. Probably they ought to guarantee the oil contracts. But, I've reached the... and, maybe, I know that.... It's a funny thing when you're not in office anymore. You don't do the security briefings. You have to understand. It requires a little humility. In some ways your vision is clearer, because you see the big things clearer. But in other ways your vision is cloudier, because you may miss the exigencies of the moment. So whenever I offer a judgment I try to show some humility, because I know that some things I see more clearly than I did when I was in, but some things I'm quite sure I don't see as clearly.

But I'm pretty sure this is the right thing to do. Press ahead with this thing, try to.... We knew when we did the bombing in '98 that we hit all the known or suspected sites based on the intelligence we had, from all the people that were doing that work there. We knew at the time that we had set his program back a couple years. But sooner or later in the millennium the new Administration, whether it was Gore's or Bush's, would have to take this matter up again.Video below of all the democratic voices BEFORE Bush's term..

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

[speedracer]

LowOiL, it fascinates me what you chose to bring up. And what you chose not to. We got Murtha, WWI, Illegals, Saddam, Microsoft, and the intentional misspelling of democrats all in one tasty post.

Food for thought, to be sure.

[LowOiL]

LowOiL, it fascinates me what you chose to bring up. And what you chose not to. We got Murtha, WWI, Illegals, Saddam, Microsoft, and the intentional misspelling of democrats all in one tasty post.

Food for thought, to be sure.

Well for my first post to CAG... I had to make it interesting. :lol: But if it helps... I call Bush a RINO (republican in name only) too. I don't like McCain, don't get me started.... and well... I just don't have a dog in this election cycle... My man Duncan Hunter bowed out earlier though I will still be writting his name in come Nov.

[Msut77]

Well for my first post to CAG... I had to make it interesting. :lol: But if it helps... I call Bush a RINO (republican in name only) too. I don't like McCain, don't get me started.... and well... I just don't have a dog in this election cycle... My man Duncan Hunter bowed out earlier though I will still be writing his name in come Nov.

Odd how no Republicans called Bush a RINO until they finally figured out that he is dragging them down. There seems to be a pattern here.

[LowOiL]

Odd how no Republicans called Bush a RINO until they finally figured out that he is dragging them down. There seems to be a pattern here.

Funny you pull from you butt a time I started calling Bush anything and then broad brush all republicans with one unresearchable off the wall comment. Lurch was the alternative presented the last election, and has proved with his continued voting record to be far worse on issues like illegals and national security. Bush is a butt kissing illegal pandering and often spineless with stoping government big spending. But he got handed Iraq and showed he had some spine when pressed. Clinton did bomb an asprin factory and fought for the Muslims in Bosnia, but for the most part he thought ignoring Islamic terrorist would make them go away. Lurch and pretty boy lawyer John Edwards would have probable been totally nadless.


The pattern here was I call a spade a spade and always have. McCain seems to be lesser of evils in this election coming up, but he is evil in many areas (to many to list here). I will not be voting for him... I base this action of not voting the lesser of evils on this scripture below from Romans 3:8

And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

The sad thing is that Obama and Chinagate Clinton make McCain look like an angel... is this the best both parties can muster this year... it truely is amazing how awful this election is shaping up ... one must give some thought to whether God has damned America according to Obama's pastor...

http://www.jeffhead.com/obama/obama-che-02.jpg




Now if want to prove your claims that I just recently started calling a RINO a RINO, well I use this same user name at www.freerepublic.com (http://www.freerepublic.com) and have been a regular poster there since 2000. My 10k posts are open to the public to search and if you even have a shread of evidence, then post it. I call a spade a spade as I see it and always have, being I am new here (newbie central). I perchance found this place while searching for a new emulation forum to post at, the old emulation site I came from has basically disappeared from existance and this one seems to be fairly active (and surprisingly clean of the worse kind of mindless profanity most sites have).
I can see where you would think that not having a post record searchable would validate calling me anything you want.. but I provide posting history to reference if anyone is actually that bored to search.


-------------------------In other News... Code Pink is pissed when Obama caught wearing this tee------------

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080426/i/r647510710.jpg?x=269&y=345&sig=B6mYueDM2L5sfbXfmPnEhw--

The Pink Puddin Heads http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4 withdrew their complaints when it was explained the shirt actually stood for U.S.Muslim Community...

[mykevermin]

The Pink Puddin Heads http://youtube.com/watch?v=AmdrkmtkCw4 withdrew their complaints when it was explained the shirt actually stood for U.S.Muslim Community...

Oh, my. I can tell you're going to be lots of fun.

[Msut77]

Funny you pull from you butt a time I started calling Bush anything and then broad brush all republicans with one unresearchable off the wall comment.

Off the wall? Either you are pulling my leg or just pulling your pud. W Bush has done almost nothing that has not followed the playbook Con's have used since Reagan, McCain is now nothing but more of the same.

So who the hell is not a RINO? What about other Republican Party leaders? After you rule out the President, the Republican members of Congress who pretty much gave him everything he wanted, the nominee who got a plurality of support who is left? The head of the RNC, guys like Ken Mehlman W's campaign manager? Rush Limbaugh (who as near as I can tell still supports W) the drug addicted gasbag? The gaggle of your fellow cretins at FR? Zombie Reagan?

As I said before Republicans and Conservatives alike supported W (and a surprising amount still do) until it started becoming political poison. It is nothing but political convenience to attempt to disavow him now and just as transparently dishonest as your ridiculous assertion that W was forced to invade Iraq.

[VanillaGorilla]

How can anyone ever post serious discussions about politics on a video games message board? :lol:

[speedracer]

How can anyone ever post serious discussions about politics on a video games message board? :lol:
It's more a question of how long it can go without becoming absolutely absurd. This thread has long jumped the shark.

The typical over/under line is around 4 posts.

[BigT]

The sad thing is that Obama and Chinagate Clinton make McCain look like an angel... is this the best both parties can muster this year... it truely is amazing how awful this election is shaping up ... one must give some thought to whether God has damned America according to Obama's pastor...

Great points, LowOil. The last few elections have been horrible as well. Bush was never a strong candidate but he won because the Democrats managed to nominate a couple of totally incompetent and dislikeable prissy pansies against him.

This year it's McCain, Obama, and Clinton... wheres the barf bag when I need it.

[level1online]

Question: How Can You Ever Trust a Republican With the Economy?

Answer: How Can You Ever Trust any Politician who perpetuates & plays into the designed Left/Right paradigm of Democrat vs Republican?

As stated in the book Tragedy & Hope by Bill Clinton's mentor Professor Carroll Quigley:

"When the business interests ... pushed through the first installment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally."

"Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence of politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice."

"Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another. But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled within the very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military or other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers."

"Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

It's so admitted and so in your face that it's not even funny anymore.

[Msut77]

BigT, So who was the last golden god of conservatism then?

[thrustbucket]

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers."


And that pretty much sums up most of the partisan arguments in these forums, including the OP.

[mykevermin]

And that pretty much sums up most of the partisan arguments in these forums, including the OP.

Yeah, what a dickbag. If only he had said something like

This sort of obscures the larger point: neither party is responsible, but they are not equally irresponsible.

Not at all, in fact.

Then it would be cool. but, you know, since he didn't...

;)

I don't pretend to be nonpartisan, I don't pretend to act as if all Democrat ideas are inherently brilliant, but I don't act as someone who thinks that the Republcians have no good ideas.

That said, I do have to chuckle at level1online's "they're ALL criminals!!!" tripe.

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.

You know who would run the government like a "real person" and not a "politician"? The only people who would never want to do it in the first place. Those who are uninterested, unqualified, and opinionated but uninformed.

"We're gonna spend HOW MUCH on a bridge to nowhere? No, fuck that shit!" Someone who wants one term and out, and who doesn't suffer fools.

Sadly, that person is nonexistent. And, for the record, neither Democrat nor Republican.

So let's get back to the sad reality that we have to select from the choices we have, take a deep breath because none of them are perfect, and stop bitching because Jesus Christ himself isn't running for office.

Your candidate is corrupt, my candidate is corrupt - they're all corrupt. They do differ, ultimately, in the degree of corruption.

[thrustbucket]

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.



Now I am far from a Ron Paul supporter. But I am quite curious about your proof of him being a racist.

I know a few places here and there have tried to say he has said anti-semetic things in the past, but googling around, I can not find anything he has said that is anywhere close to the vitriol of Jeremiah Wright.

So whatever your proof of his racism is, it sure better be an obvious order of magnitude more offensive than Jeremia Wright, since I think you were among those defending him from being called a racist.

Oh, and please don't take the "well Jeremia Wright isn't running for office" angle. This is about what YOUR definitions of racism are, and how one guy gets a pass and the other doesn't. Please describe HOW things Ron Paul has said are so much worse.

[mykevermin]

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_racist_anti_semite/

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

Now, these quotes are taken from his newsletter - which Paul claims was not written by him. However, if your metric of a person's racial problem is their mere association with someone who you deem to be racist (as appears to be your Obama problem regarding his association with Wright), then I would hope that a person whose name is the *title of the newsletter* in which racist items appear is sufficient evidence to tell you what kind of character Paul is.

On one hand, let's say he's lying: then he's a racist and a poor liar. On the other, perhaps Paul is being honest: which means he failed to monitor or read his own newsletter for over two decades. Do you want that person overseeing the government?

[thrustbucket]

On one hand, let's say he's lying: then he's a racist and a poor liar. On the other, perhaps Paul is being honest: which means he failed to monitor or read his own newsletter for over two decades. Do you want that person overseeing the government?

Interesting. Well then, if he denied ever saying those things or knowing about them, then I'd put him on the same level as Obama. Similar situations. Obama claimed to know a guy intimately for 20 years, attending his sermons, and claimed that he never heard that type of talk.

So if we are to believe both men, then to answer your question - no... to either man, for reasons you stated: they are either liars and probably racist, or very ignorant of what's going on around them. Not presidential material.

[level1online]

Yeah, what a dickbag. If only he had said something like



Then it would be cool. but, you know, since he didn't...

;)

I don't pretend to be nonpartisan, I don't pretend to act as if all Democrat ideas are inherently brilliant, but I don't act as someone who thinks that the Republcians have no good ideas.

That said, I do have to chuckle at level1online's "they're ALL criminals!!!" tripe.

Of course they are. We're perpetually in pursuit, as voters, of the lesser of two evils. Those, however, who seem to think that a millionaire paranoid confederate sympathizing racist whackjob like Ron Paul is a "man of the people" who will "run the government for the people" or "bring _____ back to Washington" (fill in with your own platitude), then you're as much of a dolt as the dumbasses who voted for *BILLIONAIRE* Ross Perot in 1992, as if he was a plebeian just like the rest of them, and not someone with vested financial interests in running the government his way.

You know who would run the government like a "real person" and not a "politician"? The only people who would never want to do it in the first place. Those who are uninterested, unqualified, and opinionated but uninformed.

"We're gonna spend HOW MUCH on a bridge to nowhere? No, fuck that shit!" Someone who wants one term and out, and who doesn't suffer fools.

Sadly, that person is nonexistent. And, for the record, neither Democrat nor Republican.

So let's get back to the sad reality that we have to select from the choices we have, take a deep breath because none of them are perfect, and stop bitching because Jesus Christ himself isn't running for office.

Your candidate is corrupt, my candidate is corrupt - they're all corrupt. They do differ, ultimately, in the degree of corruption.

Wow, you have absolutely no clue why I threw my support to Ron Paul. And all those reasons you just listed were NOT any of them.

All it took were three simple quotes from him:

"Let's bring the troops home.... NOW!!!"

"I do support a new investigation into 9/11"

"Let's abolish the Federal Reserve, and the Dept of Education."

Now, I have heard these quotes before, but never from 1 current singular candidate. And frankly, it doesn't matter to me if at the end of the day he just happens to put a "R" next to his name. I'm not voting for him because of that, It's not a f*cking clique or social club I'm trying to join. And if you can find more politicians, who will say those exact 3 quotes, then they'll get my support too.

But you won't find anyone else.... know why?

Because you'll have smear jobs written about you calling you an anti-semite, homo-hating, interwebz-hackerz, racist, tin-foil conspiracy kook. And the gullibles will eat up the "tripe" written by New Republic. What about McCain's "g00k" comments? Where's the New Republic article on that???

So... did you like the Psy-op they ran on you? Because many like yourself sure did fall for it. That hit piece, along w/ the electronic ballot box fraud got him exactly where he is today.... nowhere. You and all the others who said "Where's the revolution now??? har-dee-har-har, lolz!!!" sure got conned.

And btw, speaking of Obama, most of you guys continue to get conned; Even though, I don't support Obama, it's so obvious the election is being stolen from him. Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is actually working.... **shudders**

familiar with the original Op-CHAOS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

Never mind me, go back to sleep, you're government loves, Obama loves you, Limbaugh loves you, and..... (gasp) I LOVE YOU!!!!

And btw, no offense but

The word "Tripe" is such a faygetty sounding word. Everytime I hear that word I picture two prissy elitist asshole dudes, sitting outside a South Beach cafe, saying "This Skim-milk, Sugar-free, Mocha-Latte Frappacino is soooo f*cking TRIPE!!! waiter!!! hel-loooooo!!!"

[level1online]

Now I am far from a Ron Paul supporter. But I am quite curious about your proof of him being a racist.

I know a few places here and there have tried to say he has said anti-semetic things in the past, but googling around, I can not find anything he has said that is anywhere close to the vitriol of Jeremiah Wright.

So whatever your proof of his racism is, it sure better be an obvious order of magnitude more offensive than Jeremia Wright, since I think you were among those defending him from being called a racist.

Oh, and please don't take the "well Jeremia Wright isn't running for office" angle. This is about what YOUR definitions of racism are, and how one guy gets a pass and the other doesn't. Please describe HOW things Ron Paul has said are so much worse.

ok, here's some more info:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_hit_piece_scrapes_barrel_yellow_journalis m.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkYpviuX8MBtw, Jamie Kirchick is an admitted homosexual, as well as Matt Drudge who front-paged the article. In an email to fellow gay columnist, Kirchick actually admitted to writing the hit piece to "rile things up."
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Ron Paul does not have a problem with homosexuals, but as a former physician he does have a problem with Bug Chasers.

Read the Rolling Stone Magazine article, and decide for yourself if you too have a problem w/ Bug Chasers.... beware.... you could be labeled a homo-phobe, nazi, racist!!!!

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011508_homophobic_claim.htm

[thrustbucket]

Read the Rolling Stone Magazine article, and decide for yourself if you too have a problem w/ Bug Chasers.... beware.... you could be labeled a homo-phobe, nazi, racist!!!!



As someone who believes there is far more to life than text-book evolution, and believes in as small a government as possible, and appreciates religious influence on society, I'm already often labeled those things in today's political/moral climate.

[mykevermin]

Wow, you have absolutely no clue why I threw my support to Ron Paul. And all those reasons you just listed were NOT any of them.

All it took were three simple quotes from him:

"Let's bring the troops home.... NOW!!!"

"I do support a new investigation into 9/11"

"Let's abolish the Federal Reserve, and the Dept of Education."

I agree with #1. So far so good.

We did investigate 9/11. What's left to look into, other than your hackneyed "9/11 was done by the government" crap? My issue is not with the investigation into 9/11, my issue with the government and 9/11 is the "WHAT? SAUDI ARABIANS FLEW INTO BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK? LET'S GO TO IRAQ AND STOP THEM!" response we got.

Lastly, whether a racist or not, I fundamentally disagree with the abolition of the IRS, Reserve, and Dept. of Education. Those are shortsighted solutions to complex problems that will increase the problems and decrease the solutions. They're radically absurd ideas.

Now, I have heard these quotes before, but never from 1 current singular candidate. And frankly, it doesn't matter to me if at the end of the day he just happens to put a "R" next to his name. I'm not voting for him because of that, It's not a f*cking clique or social club I'm trying to join. And if you can find more politicians, who will say those exact 3 quotes, then they'll get my support too.

But you won't find anyone else.... know why?

Because you'll have smear jobs written about you calling you an anti-semite, homo-hating, interwebz-hackerz, racist, tin-foil conspiracy kook. And the gullibles will eat up the "tripe" written by New Republic. What about McCain's "g00k" comments? Where's the New Republic article on that???

Well, the New Republic is a left-wing pub, so that's why. Of course. You can defend this stuff all you want, but it is on Ron Paul's newsletter and thus, his resume. HE is the one whose newsletter made pro-confederacy, antiblack, antigay, anti-Israeli comments. So let's not get belligerent about people pointing it out, and act as if it's not a larger pattern of the way Paul thinks.

So... did you like the Psy-op they ran on you? Because many like yourself sure did fall for it. That hit piece, along w/ the electronic ballot box fraud got him exactly where he is today.... nowhere. You and all the others who said "Where's the revolution now??? har-dee-har-har, lolz!!!" sure got conned.

And btw, speaking of Obama, most of you guys continue to get conned; Even though, I don't support Obama, it's so obvious the election is being stolen from him. Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is actually working.... **shudders**

familiar with the original Op-CHAOS?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHAOS

Never mind me, go back to sleep, you're government loves, Obama loves you, Limbaugh loves you, and..... (gasp) I LOVE YOU!!!!

See, the major difference between you and I is that we both shudder at the majority of politicians, yet I shudder because they are inept and self-serving; you shudder because you believe they are part of a larger intentional attempt to enslave us into stupidity and compliance - not to mention that you're of the "the less proof there is for something such as 9/11 being an inside job, the Amero, and the "NAFTA Superhighway," the more plausible it is" school of thought, while I pride myself on empiricism.

And btw, no offense but

The word "Tripe" is such a faygetty sounding word. Everytime I hear that word I picture two prissy elitist asshole dudes, sitting outside a South Beach cafe, saying "This Skim-milk, Sugar-free, Mocha-Latte Frappacino is soooo f*cking TRIPE!!! waiter!!! hel-loooooo!!!"




Well, you're doing a very good job espousing the antigay side of Paul. Kudos.

Thrust, I can kinda see what you're getting at with the indirect association. I do not believe that Jeremiah Wright and Ron Paul's situations are at all similar - I think if you think of Wright's polemics showing up as op-eds in the hypothetical "Obama Newsletter," then the outrage and guilt-by-association would be that much clearer and that much greater now. Wright said things to his parish as himself, irrespective of Obama; the racist and bigoted comments appeared in Ron Paul's own newsletter. You have to make some leaps of logical faith to assume that Obama approves of Wright's message, while it's much harder in Paul's case.

[level1online]

Look at this RADIKKKAL in action!!!!!

SO EVIL!!! SO HATEFUL!!!! Quick, someone call Obama, Hillary, or McCain to save the day! More gov't regulation! More Big Brother! Pass the gruel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EQ1sg6GhZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldETRlhiXk
Bow down before the Federal Reserve & IRS! Fill out those forms and file your yearly Extortion Tax with glee!!! Watch those decimal points, and extra zeros or else we'll send SWAT teams to your door w/ LOVE BULLETS! Be a good citizen, and shut up!!! Because freedom is about your freedom to shut up!

[thrustbucket]

I enjoyed those videos, thank you.

[BigT]

BigT, So who was the last golden god of conservatism then?

No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...

So, to address your question, perhaps we have to go back to Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us."

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Therein lies the problem.

Most of our founders wouldn't like our country, but most of the people from any time period would like and use the services offered by the government (paid by taxes).

[mykevermin]

No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...

So, to address your question, perhaps we have to go back to Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

"Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us."

"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

These kinds of statements seem to be far much more liberal than conservative, IMO. At least inasmuch as they seem to warn against allowing too much wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few.

Which, for the record, is the current state of affairs in the US, in my opinion, and the very thing that conservatives want to rail against being against ("socialist wealth redistribution" and all that blather).

I'm not seeing how this is really a conservative philosophy. Perhaps you could clear it up for me?

[thrustbucket]

These kinds of statements seem to be far much more liberal than conservative, IMO. At least inasmuch as they seem to warn against allowing too much wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the few.

Which, for the record, is the current state of affairs in the US, in my opinion, and the very thing that conservatives want to rail against being against ("socialist wealth redistribution" and all that blather).

I'm not seeing how this is really a conservative philosophy. Perhaps you could clear it up for me?

First of all, I think both conservatives and liberals agree that they hate letting the few have power over the many, whether that be through money or otherwise.

The differences, as I see it, are this:

Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.

That leads into, Conservatives generally don't trust their government with their money. They generally don't believe their government will spend the money frugal, like the common citizen has to. Nor do they believe that what the government says they will take our money and spend, will actually get spent. For example, most conservatives would be fine in paying higher taxes to give the Military raises, but they don't believe the government when they say that's the reason for higher taxes. Liberals on the other hand, seem to have far more trust in their government. Or at least take on the belief that they have no other choice to "help" people but trust government to distribute our wealth wisely.

I think the biggest difference, however, is that given a choice under the realization that it has to be one or the other, conservatives would rather have wealth concentrated in private company's and individuals than concentrated into the government. Liberals are are pretty much opposite.

I see nothing in Thomas Jerfersons quotes that would suggest government driven wealth distribution being the answer to his warnings.

[pittpizza]

First of all, I think both conservatives and liberals agree that they hate letting the few have power over the many, whether that be through money or otherwise.

The differences, as I see it, are this:

Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.

That leads into, Conservatives generally don't trust their government with their money. They generally don't believe their government will spend the money frugal, like the common citizen has to. Nor do they believe that what the government says they will take our money and spend, will actually get spent. For example, most conservatives would be fine in paying higher taxes to give the Military raises, but they don't believe the government when they say that's the reason for higher taxes. Liberals on the other hand, seem to have far more trust in their government. Or at least take on the belief that they have no other choice to "help" people but trust government to distribute our wealth wisely.

I think the biggest difference, however, is that given a choice under the realization that it has to be one or the other, conservatives would rather have wealth concentrated in private company's and individuals than concentrated into the government. Liberals are are pretty much opposite.

I see nothing in Thomas Jerfersons quotes that would suggest government driven wealth distribution being the answer to his warnings.

Meh, that makes sense. I'll buy that some of the differences lie with a differing answer to the lesser of two evils question you pose.

Still, generally speaking, I do think that conservatives are far more comfortable with financial oligarcharian (<-- could be made up word) policies than liberals.

While both sides of the isle don't really want power/money (is ther a difference?) held by the few, Conservatives are more pessimistic about it and feel the government is incapable of properly spending the money; wheras liberals have faith in democracy and feel that when you take power/money away from the few and give it to the ALL (i.e. the government, since the government is by the people, for the people, of the people) it is a better result than simply not trying.

[Msut77]

No man is a "god."

True conservatives tend not to be electable in the present day. I mostly care about conservatism in the fiscal sphere...

Perhaps I should have made clear that "none of the above" is not an acceptable answer.

Care to make a response that does not involve time travel?

In all honesty I expected the standard Ronald Reagan response.

[BigT]

You asked me to name an ideal conservative god; no such person exists. I do have some politicians I like, but do not agree 100% with them. Locally, there is Tom McClintock in California and on a more national scale there are Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul.

In terms of your none of the above comment, I believe that it is an entirely appropriate answer to a silly question.
In fact, I believe that a "none of the above" choice should be present on the ballot... if that gets the plurality then the position should be left vacant... let's expose the elections for the farces that they really are.

[Msut77]

You asked me to name an ideal conservative god; no such person exists. I do have some politicians I like, but do not agree 100% with them. Locally, there is Tom McClintock in California and on a more national scale there are Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan, and Ron Paul.

In terms of your none of the above comment, I believe that it is an entirely appropriate answer to a silly question.
In fact, I believe that a "none of the above" choice should be present on the ballot... if that gets the plurality then the position should be left vacant... let's expose the elections for the farces that they really are.

So you would vote for Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan if they were running for President instead of McCain?

These are not silly questions BTW.

[elprincipe]

Most of our founders wouldn't like our country, but most of the people from any time period would like and use the services offered by the government (paid by taxes).

Speak for yourself. I don't require much in the way of government "services." "Government services" is a synonym for waste in most cases. I certainly don't need the government taxing the hell out of me when I earn money, when I invest it, when I spend it, even when I die. I certainly don't need the government controlling my retirement or health care. And it is quite enraging to realize that not only is my money being taken like this, but it's being used to fund 80% bullshit.

[thrustbucket]

Still, generally speaking, I do think that conservatives are far more comfortable with financial oligarcharian (<-- could be made up word) policies than liberals.

Eh, I can kind of see that. Conservatives are just very much... "what you earn, you keep. If you work hard and earn tons, then good for you. Do with it as you please"

And I would say that liberals are more like..... "Oh you are that rich? Well then you should be forced to help out all of us that aren't. There is no reason for you to have that much money."

While both sides of the isle don't really want power/money (is ther a difference?) held by the few, Conservatives are more pessimistic about it and feel the government is incapable of properly spending the money;

I agree with this. And so does the far majority of all government in all history, including our own.

wheras liberals have faith ignorant, idealistic, utopian hope in democracy pseudo-Communism
Sorry, I just fixed the above statement to better reflect the rest of what you said below.

and feel that when you take power/money away from the few and give it to the ALL (i.e. the government, since the government is by the people, for the people, of the people) it is a better result than simply not trying.

Hm. Yes, I do certainly agree that is what most liberals want. And even if the majority voted the government to do what you just described, it would be impossible to call the country a "Free Country".

If I come over to your house and take everything you own and then give back to you what I think you need and give the rest to your neighbors, and there was nothing you could do about it because it was the law...... would you feel free?

Our country is flooded with immigrants from the past 200 years that were hoping to escape exactly that.

[BigT]

So you would vote for Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan if they were running for President instead of McCain?


Yes.

[trq]

Conservatives don't get behind LAWS that FORCE paying money to fund things they don't agree with. Liberals tend to be fine with that, as long as you do a semi-convincing job that at least some of the money goes to "compassionate" endeavors.

Last I checked, I couldn't withhold my taxes from funding faith-based charities, corporate welfare, or war-funding, so no, you're wrong.

[mykevermin]

And I would say that liberals are more like..... "Oh you are that rich? Well then you should be forced to help out all of us that aren't. There is no reason for you to have that much money."

Oh, stuff it; you're framing things in such a lousy way. Allow me to proffer the converse.

In valley girl speak.

Conservatives are all like, "ohmigod, I totally earned everything I inherited from my rich folks, and I have so many more chances to, like, succeed because I was born with advantages that run contrary to like - idon'tknow - a meritocracy, I think? That, like, it totally overthrows the concept of a meritocracy and allows unfettered capitalism to turn itself into a multinational corporate oligarchy, where the state serves the interests of the corporate class, in tax breaks, in ignoring tax shelters, ignoring price gouging, allowing corporate bankruptcy to be forgiven at the same time that individual bankruptcy laws were severely restricted. You know, like, gag me with a spoon."

And liberals are all like, "cha! I know! All this, like, hegemony and stuff has got to stop, because, like, the wealth gap between the rich and poor is growing larger at the same time that, like, the tax burden shouldered by the rich is getting smaller. And, you know, stuff like racism and sexism and homophobia continue to exist in this world. Isn't that just totally grody? Well, the conservatives want you to believe in this "colorblind" nonsense, which is just a new form of, like, racism itself. Fer shure! So, like, we have to make sure that, ironically, the US marketplace is more meritocratic than it currently is, since, like, racism and sexism pervade the market."

Fer shure, dude. Fer shure.

EDIT: trq, don't sweat thrust. He's just latched onto 090-level bmulligan "they're forcibly wresting the wealth we earned from our hands" school of thought. He's yet to realize that the growing economy is a social event, and by no means an individual one. Of course, not everyone is equally responsible, but once he realizes this, then it will necessarily follow that his concept of stratification is a biased and absurd one that starts with the premise that the already wealthy are entitled to every penny they have earned, while the working and lower classes' earnings are always to be suspect and considered benevolent offerings from the wealthy to the undeserving and lazy. It's schadenfreude, but it's kinda funny.

EDIT2: BigT, I continually forget that you espouse Alan Keyes as an ideal of conservatism. I need to remind myself of that in order to see where you're coming from. Because I can't think of Keyes as anything other than a maniacal zealous religious whackjob carpetbagger.

[thrustbucket]

Last I checked, I couldn't withhold my taxes from funding faith-based charities, corporate welfare, or war-funding, so no, you're wrong.

I know. And it's wrong.

Oh, stuff it; you're framing things in such a lousy way. Allow me to proffer the converse.

In valley girl speak.



myke, I guess you got a pretty good deal on whatever you put in that bong tonight. Good thing the government allowed you to afford that much.

None of what you said is worth quoting because it makes almost no sense.

You've made it clear that your concept of an ideal country is one with one single class that 100% of all people belong to that all make the exact same amount of money and can't pursue more. And now we know you are also disgusted by the thought of an inheritance for one's children (which we just discovered from the above eloquence). I suppose you feel all one's bank accounts should be relinquished to the gov upon death? Wouldn't surprise me.

You'll never change this country into that. So as soon as you tire of crunching the numbers on all the ways bringing a child into this world would make the world worse, you should probably find a country that makes you feel more comfortable by not only embracing and nurturing racial, sexual, and economic divisiveness but is also closer to your idealistic, forced equality-land.

I'm sure there is someone out there that also believes hard work should reward nothing.

[mykevermin]

bmulligan lite: half the calories, none of the substance.

[thrustbucket]

bmulligan lite: half the calories, none of the substance.

And I guess this rather substantive calorie-filled "response" to all my points would, then, make you quite a hypocrite?

[mykevermin]

Not in the slightest. Your previous, more verbose post shows that you spent a lot of time to stretch my points to try to paint me as something I'm not, and it's done so in the vein of aspiring to a bmulligan-like level of understanding and vocabulary. You succeed at neither.

It's, in other words, name-calling in a prettier package. Why should I try to respond to that?

Your lack of awareness as to how your previous summaries of conservatives and liberals are absurd on the surface are indicative enough of the depth of your thinking, so why don't we call it a night? I'm a goin' to sleep anyway, so you have fun regardless.

[thrustbucket]

So that's the best you can do tonight? Accuse me of trying to be like another forum member?

Myke, myke, myke.... I really hope you are intoxicated tonight, as your big-worded PhD responses are sagging further than usual.

Your handicap is your common tendency to judge others based on your self-perceived vernacular superiority, which unfortunately, obscures your ability to rationally or intelligently dismantle an argument.

Oh and it was clear for any clear-headed person that my "depth of thinking" on the difference between conservatives and liberals far outweighed yours in this thread. Don't be sore about it.

It's, in other words, name-calling in a prettier package. Why should I try to respond to that?
Oh, stuff it:applause:

[mykevermin]

Allow me to repeat myself, since you've ignored my larger point and simply gone down trying to drag this into name-calling Sean Hannity territory. I'll stay on topic:

Your lack of awareness as to how your previous summaries of conservatives and liberals are absurd on the surface are indicative enough of the depth of your thinking.

You can try to turn this into a big ninny name-calling flame fest, but it doesn't change the fact that you made absurd and biased generalizations about who 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are, I called you on it, and you ignored that fact and decided to have another argument with me instead of standing up and accepting that, whether conservatives or liberals are right in the larger scheme of things, your generalizations were untrue, biased, stupid, and absurd on the surface.

Like a Jack Chick tract, but without the ironic humor.

[Msut77]

Yes.

Let us put this into perspective, those three represent different parts of the Conservative movement. None of the three have a chance of becoming President (Alan Keyes just recently lost the nomination of the Constitution party fer jeezuz sakes). However Keyes and Buchanan worked for the Reagan administration while Ron Paul was one of his biggest early supporters in Texas.

Basically Republicans love them some Reagan, they may not always have seen eye to eye ideologically but they don't mind basking in the reflected glory. Now Bush (and McCain) follow the Reagan playbook, mostly with the same results except W is less of a deft hand with the purdy words
and Iraq was never the Soviet Union. So now after years of failure resulting from conservative dogma taken to its logical conclusion we are where we are at right now with the bunk well and truly humped.

Now the Conservative movement and the Republican party it owns entirely is attempting to disavow W calling him a RINO, not-a-true-conservative or even a liberal bringing up the fact that they do not agree with him 100% or something they theoretically might have done at some point down the road but did not.

This board used to be crawling with Bush supporters oddly enough until W reached the worst poll numbers in American history and the Democrats took back Congress.

Now the infestation consists of people who do not wish to defend anything but merely shit on everyone else for being commies and not being Xtreme Conservatives who nevertheless are probably going to vote for McCain anyway.

[t0llenz]

The problem with most modern conservatives is that they all point to a Reagan that didn't exist. The Reagan that cut taxes, cut spending, starred down the Soviets, and pushed for social conservative issues didn't exist. The real Reagan was a mixed bag, a man who saw tax increases, defecit spending, some spending cuts, and a few SCOTUS changes in a right-ward direction. All in all, he was more middle-right than the hard right would want to admit.

If these ridiculous conservatives want to point to a President that actually governed in the way that Ron Paul wants...look to Calvin Coolidge, who effectively...did nothing as President and got us involved in nearly nothing internationally. But, they won't...because everyone loves Reagan. Why? Reagan was an awesome speaker and had a great way of making all walks of people proud to be American. That's a good thing...but that's also something that Barack Obama has an uncanny ability to do as well for all walks of people. With modern politics the way it is, this ability isn't the only thing you need to win the White House...it was for Reagan. Looking at his views pre-Presidency, he supported some of the most liberal legislation for same-sex couples in the nation in California and may have been more of a fis-con than most, but he was BARELY there socially.

I want people to make certain that Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul never become the faces of conservatism. Buchanan who honestly thinks we shouldn't have intervened in WWII (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44210); Alan Keyes who threw out his daughter after she came public with her sexuality (http://web.archive.org/web/20061102013243/http://pageoneq.com/news/2005/index.php?cat=10); or Ron Paul who's an ignorant old fool (http://t0llenz.blogspot.com/2008/01/real-problem-with-paul.html). To be quite honest, John McCain is a better face for conservatism. He espouses limited government, he actually tries to push for it, and he's not unwilling to work with people on the other side to accomplish things...but, that's just my opinion.

[thrustbucket]

Allow me to repeat myself, since you've ignored my larger point and simply gone down trying to drag this into name-calling Sean Hannity territory. I'll stay on topic:

See, it’s funny that you always like to compare me with people like Sean Hannity, because as I’ve mentioned before – arguing with you is like what I’d imagine arguing with Bill O’Rielly would be. You seem to have a very similar pattern of logic (not same opinions, obviously) and addiction to statistical studies even in opinion based discussions.



You can try to turn this into a big ninny name-calling flame fest, but it doesn't change the fact that you made absurd and biased generalizations about who 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are, I called you on it, and you ignored that fact and decided to have another argument with me instead of standing up and accepting that, whether conservatives or liberals are right in the larger scheme of things,As far as I know, there is no all-encompassing representative organization for Conservatives and Liberals. Republicans and Democrats are far from that.

That being said, as much as you hate it, I shared what I have learned based on people I personally know that define themselves as Liberals or Conservatives.

The truth is, there is no dictionary based, or study based, definition for either Liberal or Conservative, because it's all relative. Combined with the fact that the definitions change almost daily.

The liberals of 30 years ago are usually the conservatives of today. In general, that's how society seems to have progressed. Every 20-30 years the liberals turn into conservatives relative modern issues. And yes, that's just opinion, but a popular one.

Your perception of the difference between conservatives and liberals is going to be different from mine or many others, that's how it's suppose to be. Not more valid, just different. It's actually possible to have these discussions, sharing opinions, without trying to show why the way you feel is more valid. But you consistently seem incapable of understanding that.

This was obvious where you called the Thomas Jefferson quotes liberal/progressive.

See myke, this is why these types of discussions are interesting... Because everyone has a different definition. There are no studies, or statistics, or national sources to list differences for you. So you discuss, and learn from each other. It's called a forum of discussion, not a court of law.

The defined difference between liberal and conservative could never be argued in a court of law, because it's too relative, so you look a tad obtuse when you try to label someone's opinion on a relative subject as "absurd". your generalizations were untrue, biased, stupid, and absurd on the surface.
To you, I'm sure they were. And that's fine.

[Msut77]

The problem with most modern conservatives is that they all point to a Reagan that didn't exist. The Reagan that cut taxes, cut spending, starred down the Soviets, and pushed for social conservative issues didn't exist. The real Reagan was a mixed bag, a man who saw tax increases, defecit spending, some spending cuts, and a few SCOTUS changes in a right-ward direction.

I do not think all that many Conservatives (specifically guys like LowOil) know that Reagan signed an illegal immigrant amnesty bill and a gun control law among other things like the tax increase you mentioned.

[level1online]

I found this on another forum today, thought it might lighten the mood.

RATS

A tourist walks into a curio shop in San Francisco. Looking around at the exotica, he notices a very lifelike life-sized bronze statue of a rat. It has no price tag, but is so striking he decides he must have it. He takes it to the owner: "How much for the bronze rat?" "$12 for the rat, $100 for the story," says the owner. The tourist gives the man $12. "I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story." As he walks down the street carrying his bronze rat, he notices that a few real rats have crawled out of the alleys and sewers and begun following him down the street. This is disconcerting, and he begins walking faster. But within a couple of blocks, the herd of rats behind him has grown to hundreds, and they begin squealing. He begins to trot toward the Bay, looking around to see that the rats now number in the MILLIONS, and are squealing and coming toward him faster and faster. Concerned, even scared, he runs to the edge of the Bay, and throws the bronze rat as far out into the water as he can. Amazingly, the millions of rats all jump into the Bay after it, and are all drowned. The man walks back to the curio shop. "Ah ha," says the owner, "you have come back for the story?" "No," says the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Republican."

:D:D:D:D:D

[thrustbucket]

They say that Christopher Columbus was the first Democrat. When he left to discover America, he didn't know where he was going. When he got there he didn't know where he was. And it was all done on a government grant.


*******


A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, He decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republicans pocket and gave him fifty dollars.

[CaseyRyback]

He was probably homeless because the republican fatcat at his last job wanted a raise and decided to trim the fat.

[pittpizza]

Thrust you're like the energizer bunny, regardless of the facts and arguments refuting you, you just keep going and going and going. I love it.

One thing though thrust, your "deomocracy = pseudo communism" argument is sooo fuckin' played out. If, in a democracy, the government (elected by the people) decide to spend tax money on something that benefits it's citizens, then in your mind that is communism. Again, schools, national defense, police, DOT's, utilities, etc... are all relics of communism in your opinion aren't they?

Do you feel there should be NO taxes at all? Then the government would be powerless and isn't this anarchy?

Your problem seems to be with the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to make laws (and TAX). By following your logic, which is that government funds used to help it's citizens are STOLEN from those that don't need the help, you have a problem with democracy in general, since every democracy in the world has some social welfare.

What services exactly do you think a democracy could justly provide to it's citizens?

I'd be happy if I could make you understand that if the people pass a law giving their government representatives the right to tax, then all of those that are taxed, even the ones who don't agree with it, are JUSTLY bound by it. You purposefully avail yourselves of all of the benefits of society, but don't want to have to pay the bill when the check is laid down on the table.

You bitch and moan about how they're stealing your money and how social welfare programs (which, by definition, are any program paid for by the government that provides a service to the people e.g. roads, schools, hospitals, police, armies, sewage, etc.) yet I doubt you say to yourself "Dammit thrustbucket, I wish there were more potholes in this street and kids runnign around instead of in school so I could pay less taxes!"

So lets move the argument foward into "I think those services shoudl exist, but be privatized, because as everybody knows, the government can't do things as good as private businesses could." OH yeah!?? Go tell that to Great Britain's National Health Service (which is better than ours), or go tell that to the families slaughtered by Blackwater, go tell that to the people who couldn't afford half the cost of sending thier kids to a private school, or who would have to pay a toll to simply pull out of their driveway.

Is ther ANYTHING that in your opinion ought not to be privatized? And if so, why isn't THAT communist?

BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around? You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself.


"schadenfreude" what does this mean? I'm educated, but don't know everything so I have no problem asking what a word means when I don't know. I remember hearing it used in discussions about Elliot Spitzer. Is it some idea implying "just desserts" or "they got what's comin' to em?"

Good joke level1online! Thrust your joke sucked!

[mykevermin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

[thrustbucket]

Thrust you're like the energizer bunny, regardless of the facts and arguments refuting you, you just keep going and going and going. I love it.
Huh? This is how you react to me posting two jokes in response to someone elses joke? This post is kind of an over-reaction, isn't it?

One thing though thrust, your "deomocracy = pseudo communism" argument is sooo fuckin' played out. If, in a democracy, the government (elected by the people) decide to spend tax money on something that benefits it's citizens, then in your mind that is communism. Again, schools, national defense, police, DOT's, utilities, etc... are all relics of communism in your opinion aren't they?
First of all, I think you are getting me confused with someone else. I have clearly not said anything of the sort.

What you just describe is boarding on socialism, but I wouldn't call it communism. I'm not the one that throws the "C" word out everywhere.

Do you feel there should be NO taxes at all? Then the government would be powerless and isn't this anarchy?

I spent nearly an hour and answered your long list of questions last week in another thread, in which I clearly pointed out that I in fact DID believe in some taxes. Is your memory bad or do you only read what you want to read?

Your problem seems to be with the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to make laws (and TAX). By following your logic, which is that government funds used to help it's citizens are STOLEN from those that don't need the help, you have a problem with democracy in general, since every democracy in the world has some social welfare.
Which logic are you following? Where did I say any such thing?

First of all, you need to remember we don't live in a democracy, and never have. We live in a Republic.

It's time to defer to Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, 1787, commenting on the fall of the Athenian Republic 2,000 years earlier. It applies surprisingly well to us today:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.

A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith
2. From spiritual faith to great courage
3. From courage to liberty
4. From liberty to abundance
5. From abundance to complacency
6. From complacency to apathy
7. From apathy to dependence
8. From dependence back into bondage'


Now you may have seen this before. Maybe not. But it's amazing how accurately he predicted our own country's course of history before it barely existed.

I ask you, which step do you think we are at?
Then I ask you to explain how that is good.

What services exactly do you think a democracy could justly provide to it's citizens?
Again, I answered this question in great detail before, when you listed a bunch of questions for me to answer in another thread. Why are you asking it again? Go find the thread and read the answer, and respond there if you must. I'll answer it again if you have a good reason why you didn't/can't read it.


You bitch and moan about how they're stealing your money and how social welfare programs (which, by definition, are any program paid for by the government that provides a service to the people e.g. roads, schools, hospitals, police, armies, sewage, etc.) yet I doubt you say to yourself "Dammit thrustbucket, I wish there were more potholes in this street and kids runnign around instead of in school so I could pay less taxes!"
You continue to make a fool of yourself, since in the response in the other post to all your questions, I listed all those things as appropriate to pay taxes for, yet you continue, over and over again, to tell me I said something else. Why?

So lets move the argument foward into "I think those services shoudl exist, but be privatized, because as everybody knows, the government can't do things as good as private businesses could." OH yeah!??
Already addressed this in my other post, and you clearly misunderstood me.

Go tell that to Great Britain's National Health Service (which is better than ours) Six-nine month wait times for surgery is GOOD? Do you know how many people die waiting for health care there? Go look it up.

or go tell that to the families slaughtered by Blackwater
You really should stop getting your news from mediamatters and dailykos, then you wouldn't spout off unverifiable propaganda and look so foolish.

go tell that to the people who couldn't afford half the cost of sending thier kids to a private school, or who would have to pay a toll to simply pull out of their driveway.
I'm not sure what you are talking about now.

Is ther ANYTHING that in your opinion ought not to be privatized?
Yes. And once again, already answered in the other thread you clearly didn't read.

And if so, why isn't THAT communist?
Basic infrastructure and protection have never been communist. They are the first and most important reasons you set up any government.

BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around?
Umm, got a mirror handy?

You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself.
I never called democracy communism.


Good joke level1online! Thrust your joke sucked!
Actually, both jokes sucked. The purpose I posted mine was to evoke responses that would clearly weed out blind partisan kool-aid drinkers that are still limited to two-party bad/good logic. Congrats.

Really though, I don't know why I spend time responding to your posts when you've proven you have such an ability to read them, shown by your tendency to ask the same questions over and over and over, and put the same words in my mouth, over and over and over.

Edit: Actually I realize now why I do keep responding to you. Because I can tell you are a good person, that genuinely cares about people and his country. Just like me. The only real differences are that you love to trust government with as much as possible, and I don't. But once you can get past that, you'll realize we are pretty similar and want the same things.

[bmulligan]

BTW, it's sooooo fuckin McCarthyist. Do you and BMull even know who Sen. Joe McCarthy is? Can't you see that your doing the EXACT same fucking thing he is by throwing labels and intended insults around? You're calling democracy communism, and impeaching no one save yourself.


I love when I'm called a McCarthyist. The very act of doing this is McCarthyistic in and of itself. I don't think we're throwing labels around in a flippant or insulting manner, either. I can't speak for Mr. Thrust, but I'm simply trying to accurately label your philosophy because you and your brethren are steadfastly adherent to the "Liberal" moniker and you are nothing of the sort. Wanting to attach yourself to the "liberal-ness" of our founding elders is, while viscerally and emotionally effective, it is a clear misrepresentation of the truth.

If you don't believe in individual liberty, you are not a liberal.

If you don't believe in private property, you are not a liberal.

"From each his ability, to each his need." - If you agree with this statement, you probably don't know it, but you are NOT a liberal.

Today's Liberals are so in name only, not in principle. Their principles are communist in theory, in scope, and in practice. Changing their names to socialist, liberal, or any other feel-good title is a purposeful distortion of reality and practiced for the sole purpose of deceit.

The problem with McCarthy was that he'd call anyone a communist whether they were or not, just to punish his enemies and for political gain. I have nothing to gain politically, all I expect to expose is the truth about your philosophy.


And in addition, Pizza, the absence of government is not anarchy. Regardless of what they taught you in Lawyering school, we are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of Men. Because no matter how many laws you write, It's honest, individual men that keep the peace - not some words on a piece of paper.

[mykevermin]

Fair enough.

If you defend the rapid concentration of government powers to one individual, you are not a conservative.

If you willingly give up habeas corpus, you are not a conservative.

If you ignore extraordinary rendition, you are not a conservative.

If you allow the government to treat and torture any person it chooses to, and exist on a flexible definition of "torture," you are not a conservative.

The problem with modern conservatism is that they're do busy trying to define what they are not that they pay no attention to the sorts of things that the people they selected to run the government do to co-opt their freedoms on a daily basis.

Think of the irony: the government can now detain you and hold you for any reason for any period of time with no recourse whatsoever. The national debt has gone from 5.6T in 2000 to over 9T today. Because you elected a "low tax, small government, state's rights, freedom and liberty" conservative.

But let's talk about Jeremiah Wright and lapel pins instead; after all, that's much more important.

[thrustbucket]

Fair enough.

If you defend the rapid concentration of government powers to one individual, you are not a conservative.

If you willingly give up habeas corpus, you are not a conservative.

If you ignore extraordinary rendition, you are not a conservative.

If you allow the government to treat and torture any person it chooses to, and exist on a flexible definition of "torture," you are not a conservative.

The problem with modern conservatism is that they're do busy trying to define what they are not that they pay no attention to the sorts of things that the people they selected to run the government do to co-opt their freedoms on a daily basis.

Think of the irony: the government can now detain you and hold you for any reason for any period of time with no recourse whatsoever. The national debt has gone from 5.6T in 2000 to over 9T today. Because you elected a "low tax, small government, state's rights, freedom and liberty" conservative.

But let's talk about Jeremiah Wright and lapel pins instead; after all, that's much more important.

For the record, Myke, I don't support any of the things you listed above. So I guess whatever I am, I'm not a conservative.

However, the whole torture issue is getting really sticky. I have a guy on my team, an artist, that was in the army during the first gulf war as an interrogator and a teacher of interrogation. He has since been offered several times what he currently makes to join private contractors by the guys he taught, but he claims he knows what type of guys they are and he doesn't want anything to do with them.

We've had long discussions, and he did convince me that water boarding is torture. But in our discussions, I realized, that anything that is remotely uncomfortable mentally or physical, even down to loud music or a mosquito bite, is considered torture by someone somewhere.

Oh and btw, last I checked, there were only 2 or 3 known cases of waterboarding since the Iraq war started. Which doesn't excuse it, but it also doesn't really give a lot of strength to the "we run around and torture our way through war now" argument.