Big-spending Republicans


PDA






DeseoUnTaco
August 10, 2005, 08:04 PM
W's latest triumph is disgusting (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/08/10/national/w085413D31.DTL). They're spending almost a billion dollars building highways in Alaska. They're building massive bridges from nowhere to nowhere in the wilds of Alaska.

This is one of the most pork-ladden bills I can ever remember. Why does anyone, from any party, tolerate this? We're all paying the bill for it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Big-spending Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CZ-100
August 10, 2005, 08:09 PM
It is truly disgusting!

The government is really starting to Piss me off.

MrTuffPaws
August 10, 2005, 08:11 PM
Because the US government has grown to the point that those in it are destroying it by feeding from it. It seems like everyone there is there alone to make sure as much of the federal pie gets sent home to those that put them into office. If anyone thinks that either party is for a reduction of the federal government, they are fooling themselves.

wingman
August 10, 2005, 08:12 PM
Once again GREED, large corporation now have complete control of our country, most in my opinion don't care what happens to America they are
concerned about the bottom line not the future of the citizens of this
great country, pessimistic for sure but after seeing 60 plus years of a continued loss of freedom and a lack of concern on the part of our government tough for me to feel otherwise. :(

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2005, 08:24 PM
The Republican party is a disgrace and an insult to every one of us who voted them into office. A billion dollars. Isn’t that about a months worth of the never ending Iraq ‘war’? Both parties consistently demonstrate utter contempt for the American people whom they are supposed to represent. These whores don’t represent anyone but themselves.

This entire practice of tacking pork onto legislation in order to maintain incumbency is self serving, reprehensible, irresponsible, and arrogant to the max. Who the hell is gonna be able to use these highways with gasoline approaching $3 a gallon?

sumpnz
August 10, 2005, 09:36 PM
Who the hell is gonna be able to use these highways with gasoline approaching $3 a gallon? People will pay whatever they have to for gas. It could be $15/gal and people would still buy it. They'd just make adjustments in other areas of their life. Instead of that big hurkin SUV, they'll drive a mini-van or wagon. Instead of the full size car they'll drive a lightweight compact. Instead of buying that 3500sf 5 bedroom house in the gated community so each kid can have their own room plus have a guest room and an office, they'll buy a 2500sf 4 bed room house in a normal neighborhood and ditch the seperate office and make the guest room do double duty, and maybe have 2 of the kids share a room. Or rent a 1200sf 3 bedroom duplex on the other side of the tracks, make all the kids share a room, screw the guest room, and eat a lot more potatoes. You get the drift.

Flyboy
August 10, 2005, 09:46 PM
I'm just waiting for Rebar to come in here and tell us all why this is a good thing because the Republicans did it, and we should all go out and vote for them next time around to reward them for this kind of behavior.

Preacherman
August 10, 2005, 09:55 PM
Actually, I don't think that pork-barrel spending is a Republican monopoly by any means. I suspect that if the Democrats took over tomorrow, the amount of pork would remain the same, or even grow. However, I agree that whichever party is responsible, it's no less disgusting.

beerslurpy
August 10, 2005, 10:22 PM
Am I the only one that thinks this is reprehensible but pretty much invisible next to the Iraq mess that no one seems to talk about much any more. We spend that much every 2 months I think.

The worst thing is that they arent even spending tax dollars anymore. They just print more treasury bonds. Its gonna suck if anyone ever wants their 8 trillion back. I sure hope they have a plan for when we run out of money to pay off the interest.

longeyes
August 10, 2005, 10:23 PM
While our politicos dispense the pork, the Chinese are cooking it. All of this is going to end badly.

RevDisk
August 10, 2005, 10:27 PM
$286.4 billion ?

As in, which a B? Dang. That could have funded an entire invasion of a small to medium sized country for a decade. Even with KBR's graft. :neener:

Seriously, tho. All these new highways... where's the land gonna come from? Me thinks emminent domain will rear its ugly head. How much do you wish to bet a very large amount of private land will be "bought" at gunpoint for pennies on the dollar? Except for those whom are well connected to the Powers That Be, who will receive dollars on the penny.


Soon enough no one will be able to afford to drive on said highways. I remember, what? Two, three years ago gas being around a $1. I see $2.50 a gallon all the time. Sometimes as low as $2.25, sometimes as high as circa $2.65. About $1.50 jump in two or three years. In two or three years, gas prices hitting $4.00? Ouch. That will throw a spike into our economy.


People will pay whatever they have to for gas. It could be $15/gal and people would still buy it. They'd just make adjustments in other areas of their life. Instead of that big hurkin SUV, they'll drive a mini-van or wagon.

I'm sure you are mostly being sarcastic.

Ah, people usually do think of oil just in terms of gas for their car. Not completely true. A barrel of crude oil is cracked into many different products. From tar and asphalt to gasoline and kerosone. Plastics come from oil. Glance around you and see how many products within your line of sight are completely or partially plastic.

If the price of a gallon of gas hit $4 or $5, our economy would be very drastically hindered. Diesel is almost more important than gasoline. Some could argue it's far more important. How do you think food gets to the grocery store? When the price of diesel goes up, all prices go up to some degree because almost every product or its subcomponents are transferred by truck.

At $10 per gallon (in today's dollar value), almost all non-essential businesses would not be economically viable. Of course, by that point, any cheaper alternative would be taken. Gasoline would simply not be an option.

Rebar
August 10, 2005, 10:35 PM
I'm just waiting for Rebar to come in here and tell us all why this is a good thing because the Republicans did it, and we should all go out and vote for them next time around to reward them for this kind of behavior.
Lol.

Preacherman is right - the republicans learned pork barreling from the experts, the democrats. Are you going to "punish" those damn pork-barreling republicans, by voting for the even more pork-barreling democrats? Sound more like you'd be punishing yourself. Some people like that, whatever floats your boat.

Anyway, I think the republicans might be thinking of buying an extended stay as the majority party with all this. I think it's a mistake, and a big one. Democrats like massive pork barreling, republicans don't, and they just won't go vote. No turnout = no wins = no more majority. A poor strategy almost guarenteed to backfire, and backfire for several more elections.

R.H. Lee
August 10, 2005, 10:37 PM
sometimes as high as circa $2.65. I just paid $2.73.9 an hour ago. And that's the cheapest gas in town.

Flyboy
August 10, 2005, 10:54 PM
Anyway, I think the republicans might be thinking of buying an extended stay as the majority party with all this.
Damn right they're buying it! They're buying it with my money!

If you have to become your opponent to beat him, you're not winning.

As for who I'd vote for, I believe I've mentioned elsewhere that I vote people, not parties. Though I would point out to you that when the Congress and the Presidency are split, spending tends to go down. Gridlock is bad for Washington, and good for the country (funny how that works).

As to "punishing" the Republicans, well, haven't we had a number of threads about how the Democrats are backing down on the gun issue because it's turning out to be a loser for them? The Republicans in power (and it's pretty much just the ones in power--there are a lot of Republicans who are just as upset about this as we are) are doing a pretty good job of keeping Terrorism! Terrorism! Terrorism! at the front of everybody's consciousness; were it not for that, I think people would probably see the reality of the situation. I'll refrain from making a "wag the dog" accusation, but it's certainly a handy coincidence. In any case, if it takes losing a few elections to reform the party, then that's what it'll take. I have a feeling, though, that, wtih the growing body of dissatisfied "traditional" conservatives throughout the party structure, it won't take many lost seats for them to get the message. Heck, the NRA is talking about backing DeWine's Democrat opponent in the next election. A few more high-profile cases like that--get the National Taxpayer's Union and a few other groups to oppose RINOs and neocons--and we might get somewhere. But it's not going to happen if we keep rewarding them any more than the terrorists will leave us alone if we just play nice and send them food, money, and nuke fuel.

JohnKSa
August 10, 2005, 11:18 PM
Yeah! He's doing it so the Republicans will get all of Alaska's electoral college votes!

Oh wait, they already got them in the last election. All 2 of them...

RevDisk
August 10, 2005, 11:31 PM
Yeah! He's doing it so the Republicans will get all of Alaska's electoral college votes!

Oh wait, they already got them in the last election. All 2 of them...

Politicians believe in looting as much as they can while they still can.

JohnKSa
August 10, 2005, 11:35 PM
So what's his "evil motive"? I may be dense, but I just don't get it...

Igloodude
August 10, 2005, 11:52 PM
And to add insult to injury, the bridge outside Anchorage Alaska will be officially named "Don Young's Way" (and to those who might not know it, Don Young is Alaska's lone US Representative).

:( :mad: :fire: :cuss:

Standing Wolf
August 10, 2005, 11:56 PM
What a great country! All that free money! Nobody's responsible for it! Nobody ever has to account for it!

The streets really are paved with gold!

Rebar
August 11, 2005, 12:08 AM
Damn right they're buying it! They're buying it with my money!
Yeah, and this is different from the last 100 years, how?
As for who I'd vote for, I believe I've mentioned elsewhere that I vote people, not parties.
The way things are set up now, and for the forseeable future, is that the majority party sets the agenda and calls most of the shots. So you might vote people, but party matters, and matters a lot.

And again, who else is there? Do you really think that somehow the democrats have magically become the party of fiscal responsibility? That they wouldn't equal or exceed the republican's pork if and when they take over? Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.

petrel800
August 11, 2005, 12:10 AM
I don't know what you guys are so mad about. By the Washington, DC definition they cut spending with this bill . . .

The Republican leader oversaw nearly two years of negotiations on Capitol Hill to get a slimmed-down version that Bush would accept.

:barf: :fire: :cuss:

Art Eatman
August 11, 2005, 12:17 AM
Byrd of West ByGod Virginia is not known as "Senator Pork" for no reason. Last I heard, he's a Democrat.

Art

Flyboy
August 11, 2005, 12:19 AM
Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.
Last I heard, spending bills had to originate over on Capitol Hill. The President can sign or veto, and can suggest, but it takes two to tango. Go back and re-read the bit about "gridlock," then go look at spending for years where the Congress and Presidency were split, versus years they were common. Bet you'll find an interesting trend.

Rebar
August 11, 2005, 12:26 AM
Go back and re-read the bit about "gridlock,"
Gridlock doesn't get us good judges, or liability reform.

Gridlock is also a pretty big assumption. What if Hillary and a majority of democrats win? Then I think you'll have something to really complain about. That is, after you're done handing your guns in.

Flyboy
August 11, 2005, 12:32 AM
Just out of curiosity, what would the Republicans have to do to lose your vote? Can it be done? Will you vote for them no matter what, or is there some threshold they can't cross? If there is a line in the sand, what is it?

goose
August 11, 2005, 01:01 AM
Someone just crossed MY line in the sand....a gov'ner who promised "No New Taxes", and then proceeded to double the "Health Fee" (Taxes) on tobacco items (snuff, cigars, etc), raised the cigarette "Health Fee" (Taxes) 80c a pack...now @ $1.28/pack, and continued the "Health Fee" (Taxes) of 3% on ALL precriptions, doctor visits, and hospital stays. In the next election, I will vote against ALL incumbants......V O T E !...VOTE OUT THE ENCUMBANTS.
A good solution to all of this, as I've said for many snows is, double the salary of all politicians and send them home for the duration of their term....the TAXPAYER will come out ahead.

Rebar
August 11, 2005, 01:57 AM
Just out of curiosity, what would the Republicans have to do to lose your vote? Can it be done? Will you vote for them no matter what, or is there some threshold they can't cross? If there is a line in the sand, what is it?
My "line in the sand is pretty simple" - give me a viable alternative.

Right now, as bad as the republicans might seem, the democrats are five times worse. And don't even bother mentioning 3rd parties, until one gets majority in a state legislature and the governorship, they aren't worth considering. And none of the current crop has even come remotely close to any kind of significant electorial success.

It's easy to carp and complain and make outlandish statements. But not so easy to actually have a plan to get something done. My plan is to work within the republican party to move them in a conservative/libertarian direction. Your plan is, what, hand the country to the democrats?

cracked butt
August 11, 2005, 02:50 AM
Alaska, the third-least populated state, for instance, got the fourth most money for special projects — $941 million — thanks largely to the work of its lone representative, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young. That included $231 million for a bridge near Anchorage to be named "Don Young's Way" in honor of the Republican.

"the third-least populated state" its also by far the largest state area-wise.
Yipee, its a drop in the bucket :rolleyes:

For those complaining about pork, do a search on the "Big Dig" to see the bloated barrel of pork the MA delegation brought home to Boston.

longeyes
August 11, 2005, 03:30 AM
Why do I have the sense that most of that highway money is going to highways from Mexico to Los Angeles???

Bush says it will create jobs. For illegal aliens? Of course we can always do the "railroad thing" again and bring in a few million Chinese to keep the Mexicans honest.

stevelyn
August 11, 2005, 05:19 AM
They're spending almost billion dollars to build highways in Alaska. They're building massive bridges from nowhere to nowhere in the wilds of Alaska.

I love when people who've never lived here or even visited can talk smack about things happening up here they know nothing about. :fire:

FYI Alaska does not have the infrastructure in place of any of the Lower 48 states. We are still in a development stage. Most communities are accessed by air only and maybe water during the warmer months on the river system. Some of the coastal areas are served by ferries, but are seasonal due to storms in the winter months. Transportation costs and the of living up here are expensive. The only way to alleviate the expense is to develope a road system.

As for the bridges that go nowhere, the proposed bridge in question will link up a community directly with Anchorage knocking about 30 miles one-way off a commute that's normally 50+ miles. It'll alsorelieve traffic congestion on the ONLY highway leading into Anchorage from the north, which is almost at capacity during the morning and evening rush.
Another proposed bridge would eventually link Juneau to an all Alaska road system and avoid the necessity of having to go into communist held Canada or get felt up by TSA just to visit the capitol.

Spending a billion dollars on a road system here makes more sense than pi$$ing it away in foreign desert on a military adventure that we were decieved into supporting, against a country that wasn't a threat to us, and of which we'll receive no benefit from. At least we'll use it for more peaceful purposes. :fire: :banghead: :barf:

publius
August 11, 2005, 08:14 AM
Let Hillary win, then we'll pine for the days of such low federal spending.

Actually, as I pointed out before the election (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=108223&page=1&pp=25), spending growth was considerably slower under Clinton and gridlock than it has been under W and one party rule.

I could go and download the latest Economic Report of the President and maybe get some newer numbers, but here is what I found back then:

When are the Republicans going to start stemming that tide?

Checking the most recent Economic Report of the President, I see the following:
1992:
1.3 trillion total federal budget, 298 billion defense
2000:
1.7 trillion total, 294 billion defense

That's 400 billion more in socialist boondoggles in 8 years of Clinton.

2001:
1.8 trillion total, 305 billion defense
2004 (projected, meaning it will be higher):
2.3 trillion total, 455 billion defense

That's 150 billion more for defense, 350 billion more for socialist boondoggles in 4 years. Given the historical rate at which they exceed spending projections, it's virtually certain that the 350 billion number will swell to over 400 billion, or twice the growth rate we saw under Clinton and gridlock.

How about total government spending as a percent of GDP? That's an important number as well. After all, it would be insane for me to spend as much as $50,000 on a security system for my house, but it would be similarly nutty for Bill Gates to spend that little.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject knows that government spending in the US has been around 15 to 20% of GDP since WWII.

In 1992, total federal spending was 22.1% of GDP. By 2000, it was down to 18.4%.

To quote Gomer Pyle, well gooooolleee! The GOP Congress didn't want that Clinton feller spending money, and they actually cut govt spending as a percent of what we've got to spend.

What have they done under W?

2001: 18.6%
2002: 19.4%
2003: 19.9%
2004: 20.2% (estimate, meaning it will be higher, if you'll recall the prescription drug boondoggle)
...
What have we seen under one party rule? Well, checking back in the Economic Report of the President again, here's an interesting item:

Education, training, employment, and social services. You might have already known that these things are federal responsibilities, since it says right in Article 1, Section 8 that, uh, everything affects interstate commerce so the feds have authority over everything. Anyway, back in 2000, we spent $53.7 billion on those things. This was drastically insufficient, so in 2003, we spent $82.6 billion. It's projected to keep right on skyrocketing.

At what point is enough enough?

griz
August 11, 2005, 08:18 AM
Why does anyone, from any party, tolerate this? We're all paying the bill for it.

Simple. When the election rolls around, the same people complaining about this bill will vote for the "lesser of two evils", ignoring the fact that they are voting for, and getting, evil.

feedthehogs
August 11, 2005, 10:01 AM
Ya gotta have roads and bridges in Alaska before you can drill for oil.
Right?

Waitone
August 11, 2005, 10:10 AM
Pasting pork on appropriations bills is traditional. The bill of choice is transportation legislation. Been that way since the advent of horseless carriages. No need to get up set, roll over and go back to sleep.

Republicans are no different than democrats. Both accrue power via spending money they don't have. There is a day coming when this will all come to an end in quite dramatic fashion. Go get the lawn chair, kick back, crack open a Shiner and enjoy the festivities.

HankB
August 11, 2005, 10:21 AM
It looks like the only time Republicans actually behave like Republicans is when there's a democRAT in the White House. The Bushmen are spending money like drunken sailors in a bordello after 4 years at sea - even GOP stalwarts like Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich have nothing good to say about this pork-laden transportation bill.

What this country really needs is a real Republican majority in the House and Senate - RINOs like Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, John McCain, Olympia Snow count as democRATS - and a democRAT in the White House. (Unless we get someone like Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul as President.)

What happened to the deficit hawks? They seem to be extinct. :(

You know, I'm starting to think that all other issues - from gas prices to abortion to homosexual marriage to gun control to the war in Iraq - are simply being played up to divert us from asking questions about the one, real, ultimate, issue: How much of our money is government taking and who are they giving it to? :fire: :banghead: :cuss: :barf:

rick_reno
August 11, 2005, 10:49 AM
"During his re-election campaign, President Bush appealed to fiscal conservatives when he vowed to veto the highway bill unless Congress kept spending within his budget request." This bill went ONLY $30 billon over his target.

Oh no, did President Bush lie to us? Is he a Republican?

"Reagan, in fact, vetoed a highway bill over what he said were spending excesses, only to be overridden by Congress."

wingman
August 11, 2005, 11:25 AM
Spending a billion dollars on a road system here makes more sense than pi$$ing it away in foreign desert on a military adventure that we were decieved into supporting, against a country that wasn't a threat to us, and of which we'll receive no benefit from. At least we'll use it for more peaceful purposes.

Agree with you on that, this administration has harmed the republican
party which of course is making the future easy for Hillary.

BryanP
August 11, 2005, 11:34 AM
Democrats like massive pork barreling, republicans don't

Riiiiiiiiiiight. And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

JohnBT
August 11, 2005, 11:38 AM
"Pasting pork on appropriations bills is traditional."

The voice of reason. A man with a true sense of history. Yeah, it's just more of the same old way of playing politics.

But boy do I love it when the Bush-bashers jump on any old lame excuse to crawl out of the woodwork. :scrutiny:

John

griz
August 11, 2005, 11:42 AM
And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

:D Wiping spewage off of monitor now. :D

Daniel T
August 11, 2005, 03:19 PM
But boy do I love it when the Bush-bashers jump on any old lame excuse to crawl out of the woodwork.

But boy do I love it when Republicans issue forth that famous battle cry of "But they do it to!", usually in a whiny, plaintive voice.

R.H. Lee
August 11, 2005, 03:25 PM
Ya gotta have roads and bridges in Alaska before you can drill for oil.
Right?
Ya got a point there. And at least we're getting something for our money, as opposed to pissing it down a rat hole in Iraq, where we get nothing back but our dead young military people :fire: because George Bush doesn't seem to realize we have an Air Force and cruise missles.

Smurfslayer
August 11, 2005, 03:34 PM
And if you believe that I have a bridge or two to sell you. Oh, wait ...

Speaking of which... It's about time we got some extra $$$ into the transportation coffers. Back in '95 - '96, Bill Clinton PROMISED to "build a bridge to the 21st century"... :scrutiny:

Well?

Where's this bridge? :uhoh:


Maybe now the taxpayers will FINALLY get their bridge to the 21st century.

griz
August 11, 2005, 04:22 PM
Where's this bridge?

We burned it behind us. That's why we have to keep building better more expensive bridges. :D

Flyboy
August 11, 2005, 09:06 PM
My "line in the sand is pretty simple" - give me a viable alternative.
So, if there's no alternative, then the Republicans can start eating babies and kicking puppies and you'll still vote for them? I know that's an outrageous statement, so I'm going to ask the question again: what would they have to do to lose your vote? They don't control other parties, just themselves. At what point would their actions cause you to take your vote elsewhere?

You might also consider the fact that some Democrats, particularly those from flyover country, are getting less and less impressed with A) the government's current tack, and B) their losses at the polls, and are reforming themselves. Yeah, Hillary and Feinstein suck; however, they won't live (or be involved in politics) forever. What if Zell Miller (or similar) ran for President? Would you honestly turn somebody like him out in favor of our current spend-and-spend-more Republicans just for the sake of ideological purity? You might also want to think about the effect that getting such people into power might have upon the direction of the party.

GunGoBoom
August 11, 2005, 09:47 PM
Mmmm, no pork like Elephant pork. On a scale of 1 to 100, the current GOP is a negative 50,000. The Dems (at the federal level) are a negative 50,001.

Chris Rhines
August 11, 2005, 09:52 PM
The Republicans have ALWAYS been pro-big government and pro-big spending, since the earliest days of the party. They talk a good game when the Democrats hold office, but every single time the GOP gets hold of the reins, the credit cards come out.

- Chris

Lone_Gunman
August 11, 2005, 09:59 PM
Chris is right. The Republicans do best when they are the minority party.

I know we all hated Bill Clinton, but when you think about it, I really think he has done less damage to our Republic than Bush has. The Republicans deserve the credit for that, because they didn't let him accomplish much of his liberal agenda since they controlled the legislative branch.

I used to think things would be great if we ever had a Republican House, Senate, and President all at the same time, but the last 5 yrs have proven me wrong. Since neither party is really worth a damn, we the people are better off when power is divided between the two parties, and they spend their time bickering with each other instead of passing legislation.

Rebar
August 11, 2005, 10:58 PM
So, if there's no alternative, then the Republicans can start eating babies and kicking puppies and you'll still vote for them? I know that's an outrageous statement...
It is indeed an outragous statement. I'd hardly equate being spendthrifts to baby murderers and animal torturerers. Heck, if being a spending other people's money was a crime, my wife would be in jail for life.

The democrats would have to move well to the right of where the republicans are now before I'd consider voting for them. That includes fiscally, on RKBA, and defense. I consider that possiblity less probable then the libertarians taking the presidency in 08. Sure, Zell Miller would be great as president, but there's no way he'd get anywhere in todays democratic party, which is exactly why he quit it and campaigned for Bush, if you recall.

Let's add up all the pork the democrats shoved through in their 38 years as the majorty party, before getting too upset over this years budget. I'm sure that total would be a real eye opener. While we're at it, lets kick in the "new deal" and the "great society" programs too. It'll take a long, long time before the republicans can get anywhere near what the democrats have thrown away all these years.

Lone_Gunman
August 11, 2005, 11:56 PM
Rebar, lets talk about those 38 yrs you keep mentioning.

I always thought we had a some Republican Presidents in there who could have vetoed those spending bills the Democrats kept passing... You know, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush...

I think Republicans were sitting in the White House for most of those 38 yrs. You know where the buck stops?

ajax
August 12, 2005, 12:44 AM
Rebar keep fighting the good fight. One day when these bleeding heart liberals are hunting with sling shots and still crying about pork barrel spending because their favorite liberal has screwed them again I'll be forced to hunt them down and shoot them with my sling shot. :neener:

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 01:22 AM
I think Republicans were sitting in the White House for most of those 38 yrs. You know where the buck stops?
Hardly a fair comparison. Johnson did more damage then all the following presidents combined, including the democrats.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:23 AM
Oh looky here again: Bush is 'creating jobs' by spending. Just like the good socialist/democrat that he is.

Hell even Der Shlickster looks like a fiscal conservative next to the global socialist George W. Bush.

Republicans, the party of big government.


http://www.bongonews.com/StoryImages/bush_nose.jpg
"Ohhh a little pork here and a little pork there...
here some pork, there some pork, everywhere some pork pork..."


http://www.topplebush.com/humor/Pork-Palace_small.jpg

http://www.lazyq.com/Phil029.JPG

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 01:31 AM
Republicans, the party of big government.
Democrats, the party of even BIGGER government. And they want your guns too.
http://edition.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/18/clinton.legal.fees/link.hillary.clinton.jpg
http://www.jeffblogworthy.com/uploads/FuppetMoore.jpg
http://www.iansa.org/issues/images/bentgun2.jpg

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:32 AM
Rebar, lets talk about those 38 yrs you keep mentioning.

I always thought we had a some Republican Presidents in there who could have vetoed those spending bills the Democrats kept passing... You know, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush...

I think Republicans were sitting in the White House for most of those 38 yrs. You know where the buck stops?

Exactly, the government has spent more than it has taken in since 1969. Expecting a Republican to be fiscally responsible is like expecting a crackhead not to touch the pipe again.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:35 AM
Democrats, the party of even BIGGER government. And they want your guns too.

Oh, because Clinton spent alot of money, it's ok for Bush to spend even more because of the little (R) next to his name? When are you gonna wake up?

Bush’s Bloated Budget

"A month after becoming president, Mr. Bush explained in a press conference (February 22, 2001) that his budget would reduce the rate at which spending is increasing — but without cutting spending in the absolute sense. "We’re going to slow the rate of growth of the budget down," he said at the time. "It should come to [sic] no surprise to anybody that my budget is going to say loud and clear that the rate of growth of the budget, for example, from last year, was excessive. And so we’ll be slowing the rate of growth of the budget down."

Bush, in other words, didn’t promise to shrink the size of government, but merely to slow the rate of big-government expansion — to put the brakes on the car speeding towards the precipice, but not to stop it, much less change its direction. But in the end, Bush didn’t even put on the brakes, but hit the accelerator instead. In the budget he submitted in April 2001, Bush proposed spending $1,961 billion in fiscal 2002 as compared to an estimated $1,856 billion in 2001 — a 5.7 percent increase. That, of course, was before September 11th. In a midterm budget summary released in July, the Bush administration estimated fiscal 2002 spending at a whopping $2,032 billion as compared to actual fiscal 2001 spending of $1,864 — a nine percent increase. The July budget document also proposed spending $2,138 billion in fiscal 2003, a 5.2 percent increase over 2002. During the Clinton presidency, the rate of increase in the federal budget from one year to the next never exceeded 5.1 percent (1999 to 2000), and it was as low as 2.6 percent (1996 to 1997). The bottom line: Federal spending is increasing at a faster rate with George W. Bush in the White House than it did with Bill Clinton in the White House.

Other budget trends also make the Clinton era appear more fiscally conservative by comparison. When Clinton was president, the annual budget deficits as calculated by the federal government became successively smaller and were eventually replaced with surpluses as high as $236 billion (fiscal 2000).* Bush proposed a $231 billion surplus for fiscal 2002 in the budget he submitted in April 2001. But in the budget he submitted in February of this year, the $231 billion surplus for fiscal 2002 was refigured as a $106 billion deficit. In the July midterm budget summary submitted just five months later, the $106 billion deficit was refigured as a $165 billion deficit. Presumably the final figure will be relatively close to the latest estimate, since the fiscal year ends this September 30th. Nevertheless, even a $165 billion deficit is dwarfed by the $290 billion deficit in fiscal 1992 when George Bush the elder was president. Judging by current trends, Americans may someday view the Clinton presidency — shocking though it may seem — as an intermission of relative fiscal discipline between two big-spending presidents named Bush.

How could a surplus originally projected at $231 billion become instead a $165 billion deficit? Why the $396 billion difference? In a speech he gave in Milwaukee on August 14th, President Bush explained, without citing specific numbers: "Right now, we’ve got some deficits because of the recession and because we’re funding the war on terror. But by restraining excessive spending, we can have our budget back in balance. But it’s going to require Congress to show some discipline." Congress, however, cannot restrain excessive spending without rejecting many of the president’s spending requests."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artma...ticle_851.shtml

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:36 AM
Oh by the way:

And they want your guns too.

"I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban" - George W. Bush (R)

hifi
August 12, 2005, 01:40 AM
Bush isn't a conservative. He's a global socialist politician who is managing this country like he managed all his businesses. And this time there isn't any monied friends of his daddy to bail him out. :scrutiny:

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 02:16 AM
lol, I won't rile you up any more tonight hifi, seems like you're close to a stroke already.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 02:44 AM
lol, I won't rile you up any more tonight hifi, seems like you're close to a stroke already.

You don't rile me at all Rebar :cool: In fact I understand exactly where you're coming from most of the time. I used to be a mindless Republican propagandist/Bushbot pre-2001. I'd listen to Rush, proudly call myself a dittohead and post on Free Republic. The Socialist Party USA errrrr I mean the Republican party does rile me though now. Most conservatives feel terribly betrayed and rightly so.

I hope I don't have that stroke, I'd like to see my 26th birthday in a couple weeks!

But if you've been around awhile you should have known better. My excuse for being a former Republican apologist? Youth and inexperience.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 03:15 AM
I used to be a mindless Republican propagandist/Bushbot pre-2001. I'd listen to Rush, proudly call myself a dittohead and post on Free Republic. The Socialist Party USA errrrr I mean the Republican party does rile me though now. Most conservatives feel terribly betrayed and rightly so.
Well that's good that I don't disturb you.

However I really don't believe you when you say you were a republican, you sound a lot more like a DU troll who pretends to have "found the light" but is really a frothing at the mouth Bush-hate zealot who's here to provoke us "rednecks".

A real republican would understand that, while Bush is hardly a Reagan, he's a whole lot better than a Gore or Kerry. No, you're a true-blue moveon.org type I think, who thinks he can come here, spew a bunch of Bush-hate, and imagines he'll convert us backwards gun-nuts to the true faith.

Too bad the democrats have already proven to be the real socialists, the real gun haters, the real anti-freedom party. You can rail against the GOP all you want, but thoughtful folks already know that the democrats are 10 times worse then the republicans on a bad day.

No one here is going to vote for Hillary, maybe you can try to fool some other people somewhere else.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 03:39 AM
Well that's good that I don't disturb you.

However I really don't believe you when you say you were a republican, you sound a lot more like a DU troll who pretends to have "found the light" but is really a frothing at the mouth Bush-hate zealot who's here to provoke us "rednecks".

A real republican would understand that, while Bush is hardly a Reagan, he's a whole lot better than a Gore or Kerry. No, you're a true-blue moveon.org type I think, who thinks he can come here, spew a bunch of Bush-hate, and imagines he'll convert us backwards gun-nuts to the true faith.

Too bad the democrats have already proven to be the real socialists, the real gun haters, the real anti-freedom party. You can rail against the GOP all you want, but thoughtful folks already know that the democrats are 10 times worse then the republicans on a bad day.

No one here is going to vote for Hillary, maybe you can try to fool some other people somewhere else.


Don't you have everything right now?? The Republicans have complete control of the levers of power from the Supreme Court down through the Executive, the House and the Senate. The world is your oyster! There are very few barriers to the Republican party dominating politics and the media for years to come! The era of grumbling about 'liberals' screwing stuff up is long over, since they are in the minority and are pretty powerless to this day.

Now all the Bushbots are left to, is being big government sycophants which proves how soulless and empty their convictions truly are. Only a completely brainwashed dittohead nutjob could equate the views of Ron Paul or the John Birch society with "liberals" "moveon.org" or "DU Trolls". I can't even imagine...

You identify yourself as a 'gun nut' yet your posts seem to be basically confined to the Legal forum along with the few bits of B.S. you occasionally spout in General Guns and Rifle Country.

And then you have the balls to accuse me of being a 'Democrat' and trying to fool people into voting for Hitlery.... Can I ask what planet you're from?

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 03:46 AM
All anyone has to do is read your hate-filled invective concerning Bush and/or republicans to know where you're coming from. Stuff that DU would blush to allow on their site, flows from you like a river.

But thanks for taking the time to go through my post history, and calling me a "Bushbot".

Better a Bushbot, than a hate bot.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 03:51 AM
I prefer being a truthbot and a conservativewithconvictionsbot. Anything beats being a Bushbot!!!

Here, enjoy!

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=151318

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 03:54 AM
I prefer being a truthbot and a conservativewithconvictionsbot
I think people here know what you are.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 04:00 AM
I think people here know what you are.

Yes they do. I wish you knew. Take off the neocon blinders you got free in the mail for being a 5 year subscriber to Rush 24/7..

Sindawe
August 12, 2005, 04:03 AM
Shoot, who put the mud in the skeet launcher again?

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 04:35 AM
Yes they do. I wish you knew. Take off the neocon blinders you got free in the mail for being a 5 year subscriber to Rush 24/7..
Ok, so you hate Bush and the republicans, that much is abundently clear. Let's just skip over the fact that a lot, if not the large majority, of THR members voted for them twice.

So, what's your point? So far you've spewed a vile river of Bush-hate and cut-and-pasted a million miles of DU/Moveon.org/DNC talking points. Well done. I promise I won't vote for George W. Bush ever again, if that will make you happy.

But so far, you've posted nothing constructive, nothing positive, nothing on where to go from here. If the republicans are so terrible, then who to vote for? Who to support? What to do to make things better? So far you've left those out of your endless rants bashing Bush, Rush, and the evil neocons.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 04:46 AM
If the republicans are so terrible, then who to vote for? Who to support?

I thought you were the master of "support conservatives from within the party" (fiscal conservatives like me, but not you obviously).

You should know what to do if that's how you truly feel. I'm a fiscal conservative.

Myself, I'm at the point where I believe the whole mess is so corrupt that there's no way conservatives will ever have a voice again under this government. In fact I think you have to be incredibly naive to think otherwise. The fire breathing dragon that is the federal government will just continue to grow and grow and get more and more socialist and oppressive no matter which bought off politicians are in positions of great power or in the Whitehouse.

The writing is on the wall. The solution is to stop acting like the RINO's which your types claim to despise and yet apologize for at every opportunity possible. Take a stand. Even if the (L) party causes a (R) defeat, who's to blame, the (L) party or socialist Republicans? If you think the (L) or (C) party is to blame, it's like blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 04:49 AM
Even if the (L) party causes a (R) defeat, who's to blame, the (L) party or socialist Republicans? If you think the (L) party is to blame it's like blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
So you advocate supporting the libertarians, in so many words?

hifi
August 12, 2005, 04:53 AM
I advocate and support conservative ideals. I don't necessarily advocate any party in entirety, since I have disagreements with them all. But we should have some agreement in sticking to our principals and voting for those candidates who best uphold their oath of office, to obey The Constitution of the United States.

I inserted a (C) there as well after you quoted me, so as not to appear as any type of party loyalist as I certainly am not.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 04:58 AM
I advocate and support conservative ideals.
Very well. Do you consider any 3rd party to be competent or viable enough to advance conservative ideals?

hifi
August 12, 2005, 05:06 AM
Very well. Do you consider any 3rd party to be competent or viable enough to advance conservative ideals?

I'm advancing conservative ideals right now. Don't quiz me with your patty cake logic about how alternative parties are unelectable. We all know that alternative parties have nowhere near the base to win a national election based on the fact that the two socialist/corporate parties own the MSM. However voting for the lesser of two evils will always = evil. That's not even defense. And we all know defense is a losing strategy. Look how we've lost our gun rights over the years... by defending them.

What we have to do, in my opinion is rally the conservative base on an information capacity. People are always willing to spend other people's money. But if we can show them the sum result of this...if we can show them the daily abuses of the .gov and the waste and the corruption.. we can win. A George W. Bush victory is not a victory at all. It's nothing in fact. A real victory happens every time the truth is exposed to the American people.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 05:11 AM
And no I don't care if Badnarik would have cost Bush the election. In fact it would have made a statement. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two corporate parties.

Do you think we would still have the AWB if Kerry was President? Give me a friggin break. It still would have gone away, only the Repubs in their controlled Congress would have fought him tooth and nail in another staged event.

publius
August 12, 2005, 08:24 AM
Do you consider any 3rd party to be competent or viable enough to advance conservative ideals?

Certainly I do. I've been a Libertarian since I discovered Ron Paul and voted for him for President back in 88. I remember what it was like back then.

Back then, only Libertarians really got away with stringing the words "privatize" "social" and "security" together in that order. We talked about it for quite some time before it became safe for Republicans to talk about a watered down version.

Back then, only Libertarians talked about something called "school vouchers." We got called fascist and uncaring alot, but we still kept talking about it, in the face of stony silence from the duopoly.

Back then, only Libertarians talked about something called "emissions trading" and other means of bringing market forces to bear to help solve problems. Again, silence from the duopoly for quite some time.

Shall I go on? Point it, we've led the way, we've been the proving grounds for ideas which were later adopted (in watered down form) by Republicans. OK, so most of our best ones came from Milton Friedman, but we were his only organized political chorus for quite some time.

Want to see the future of Republican conservatism? Go read lewrockwell.com and water it down a bit. ;)

griz
August 12, 2005, 08:29 AM
Let's add up all the pork the democrats shoved through in their 38 years as the majorty party, before getting too upset over this years budget.

The R's have controlled the presidency and both houses for five years. In that time is there one single bite of pork that they have reversed? My point isn't that the D's are better, in fact I think they are a tiny bit worse. My point is BOTH parties are going in the same direction, bigger government. I just don't understand how someone can complain about how their party spends an "unacceptable" amount of tax dollars, and still accept it by giving them your vote. That's why Flyboy asked what would it take for them to lose your support. So that's why I vote for L canidates for pres. I know they will not win, but I want both "viable" parties to know they have lost my support. You can call it a meaningless protest vote, but remember when Perot got a bunch of the protest vote the Republicans suddenly got very conservative.(for one election :rolleyes: )

Exactly, the government has spent more than it has taken in since 1969.

Not true. For the last few years of (cough) Clinton's term we had a slight surplus. True it was related to the .com boom, but it was there. Maybe gridlock is good.

Art Eatman
August 12, 2005, 12:30 PM
griz, your comment about "surplus" is true--but only due to FICA monies.

If y'all wil recall, it was Gingrich's ideas that led to the "1994 Republican Revolution", and Gingrich was not a tax-and-spend type.

Congresscritters know that using Pork to buy votes works. So, they're gonna stay with that program. That's why in many ways I'm a single-issue voter: Which will-win party is least likely to hurt me in the gun-control issue?

Political awareness generally begins in one's late teens to early twenties. LBJ's Great Society stuff, and the War on Poverty, began in the middle 1960s. So, anybody born after around 1945 grew up with LBJ's programs as a "norm". The foundation of all that is the notion that government can and should solve social problems.

You add that to the Pork thing and you might better understand why "conservative" Congresscritters really aren't, from a fiscal standpoint. Or Bush, for that matter. After all, he was raised by a father whose career was as a government employee...

Art

griz
August 12, 2005, 01:15 PM
Art, do you think that government spending will continue to rise until it cripples the economy, or level out before then?

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 01:46 PM
I'm advancing conservative ideals right now.
Not really. You think that bashing Bush and ranting against the republicans advances anything except the liberal/left agenda? Nope.

And you might mock my statement that the libertarians cannot get elected, but the fact remains - the libertarians have a hard time getting dog-catchers elected. Why do you think your idol Ron Paul joined the the "socialist" republicans? How does supporting a party that cannot get elected advance anything? The simple fact - it cannot.

And no I don't care if Badnarik would have cost Bush the election. In fact it would have made a statement. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two corporate parties.
I wish that the libertarians could field a candidate who could be even a minor factor. They can't, and they won't.

And I've debunked that rediculous statement that there aren't any differences between the major parties time and time again. There are significant, and for gun owners critical, differences, and we're a lot better off with the republicans then the democrats.

And I did, and do, think that working within the republican party to move it more towards a conservative/libertarian direction is the best course of action, especially on the local/state level. I don't consider you a conservative, btw, I consider you a troll, so you can go ahead and join whatever you want, as long as it's far from me.

Silver Bullet
August 12, 2005, 03:03 PM
Hmmm, you beat me to it, Rebar. “Fish in a barrel.” :) But I’m going to do my post anyway:

well, haven't we had a number of threads about how the Democrats are backing down on the gun issue because it's turning out to be a loser for them?
I didn’t see any of those. I’ve seen a lot of threads where the Dems are keeping mum about their gun banning intentions, or are trying to disguise their gun banning intentions with calls for “sensible” (code word) gun laws, such as registration, banning of .50 caliber, banning “assault weapons”, and most recently banning .30-.30. All you have to do is look at the AWB vote and S.397 to see who really supports what.

There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two corporate parties
All you have to do is look at the AWB vote and S.397 vote to see that’s not true. Also, compare Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court to who you might imagine Gore or Kerry would have nominated. No difference ? You’d be just as happy with Schumer or Feinstein nominated ?

publius
August 12, 2005, 06:29 PM
How does supporting a party that cannot get elected advance anything? The simple fact - it cannot.
...
I wish that the libertarians could field a candidate who could be even a minor factor. They can't, and they won't.

We have had a Socialist Party in America for a very long time, much longer than the few decades we've had the LP.

They've enjoyed even less electoral success than the LP.

And yet, if you look back and find their platforms from 60 or 80 years ago, and compare those to actual laws and major party platforms today, you can see that many of their goals have been achieved.

Seems they are a factor, somehow.

Silver Bullet, on gun rights, there is no comparison. The parties are clearly different. On nominations, again it's lopsided. On decision after decision, the more conservative judges make the most sense to me (except when Scalia did the ritual drug warrior defenestration of principles (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html)).

The really big issue where the parties are, at best, the same, is federal spending. The growth rate in spending has doubled, and spending as a percent of output is up significantly. That is what the thread is about.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 06:50 PM
They've enjoyed even less electoral success than the LP.
Actually, they've had considerably more: Bernie Sanders the US Rep from Vermont is a Socialist. An actual federal level election success, something the libertarians can only dream about.
Seems they are a factor, somehow.
Only in that they've taken over the democratic party, not as a party unto themselves.

When the socialist agenda is presented honestly and openly to the American voter, it's shot down big time. It has to be snuck into the process, through the left-wing MSM, left-wing public schools and college professors, activist judges, "new deal" and "great society" programs, the list of extra-legislative ways they've infiltrated their socialist principles is endless.

Waitone
August 12, 2005, 07:09 PM
We have had a Socialist Party in America for a very long time, much longer than the few decades we've had the LP.

They've enjoyed even less electoral success than the LP.Actually we have a whole sackfull of socialists in congress. They formed an informal caucus. They periodically put up a web page with the name which shortly is pulled down. IIRC all members are democrats but they profess allegiance to socialists principals.

Silver Bullet
August 12, 2005, 07:16 PM
I've posted this before, but nobody has shot it down yet (or even agreed with it) so I guess I'll regurgitate it:

I don't understand why the Libertarians don't do what the socialists did with the Democrat party: infiltrate and take control of the Republican Party. Libertarians could join the Republican Party and leverage off its funds, political organization, and public acceptance. I think this is what Ron Paul did, and I don’t see a downside other than being so outnumbered that “taking control” is difficult.

Marshall
August 12, 2005, 07:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, what would the Republicans have to do to lose your vote? Can it be done? Will you vote for them no matter what, or is there some threshold they can't cross? If there is a line in the sand, what is it?
Between Dem and Rep, I'll vote Republican every time, without question. The Dems are just too far left for me, I would rather be too far right, if those were the only options.

Oh yea, Dems have always been the "tax and spend party", not that all of Washington isn't that way. But the title of the thread got me laughing, along with a lot of post about nasty old republican spending. :rolleyes:

Bottom line is, if you take away the money they all play with, what are they going to do all day? After all, that's what they do all day long, argue on how to spend our $. Heck, now they do it on TV, we get to figure out which way to bend in advance so taking up the *ss doesn't hurt as bad.

bogie
August 12, 2005, 08:23 PM
Yeah, sure, vote against the Republicans. That way the Democrats gain percentage. And we end up with people who think that it's perfectly logical for the state police to go door to door searching for guns. While at the same time ignoring the criminals.

Go back to the Democratic Underground, okay?

Justin
August 12, 2005, 08:26 PM
Haven't really read the thread, but a recent article of Forbes made the interesting point that if spending levels continue on their current course that we can expect 50% of the economy to be governmental around 2040ish.

hifi
August 12, 2005, 08:46 PM
Not really. You think that bashing Bush and ranting against the republicans advances anything except the liberal/left agenda? Nope.

Bush did not veto a single spending bill during his entire first term. Not one.

Bush is the king of socialist big spenders. He has spent more money on social/welfare programs than Klinton ever dreamed of.

Anybody who thinks Bush is a fiscal conservative who's going to control government spending, is braindead.

And you might mock my statement that the libertarians cannot get elected, but the fact remains - the libertarians have a hard time getting dog-catchers elected. Why do you think your idol Ron Paul joined the the "socialist" republicans? How does supporting a party that cannot get elected advance anything? The simple fact - it cannot.

Bashing a Republican over the head when they spend or behave as socialists advances the socialist liberal agenda? You're really out there pal. For the mindless party loyalists, it's all about winning even if their candidate is left of Klinton.

Rebar does the worst impression of a conservative I've ever seen!!

When the socialist agenda is presented honestly and openly to the American voter, it's shot down big time. It has to be snuck into the process, through the left-wing MSM, left-wing public schools and college professors, activist judges, "new deal" and "great society" programs

And membership in the Republican party. Best cover they ever had!

Haven't really read the thread, but a recent article of Forbes made the interesting point that if spending levels continue on their current course that we can expect 50% of the economy to be governmental around 2040ish.

No doubt the party loyalists will cheer it on as they do our 40% tax rate now. It's all about incrementalism. If the government is 50% of the economy, what does that mean, 90% tax rate? Pure socialism my friends. As opposed to the "socialism lite" we have today. It was a founding father, I believe Ben Franklin who said that any government that taxes over 9% is tyrannical.


This thread just goes to show that anyone can get away with being left of Stalin just because of the (R) next to their name. The democrats would destroy this country, if not for the party loyalists who have already beaten them to the punch. This thread is a perfect example of the near hopeless situation this country is in.

Flyboy
August 12, 2005, 09:31 PM
Here's another point to ponder, particularly to those of you (Rebar, Marshall, a few others) who advocate party loyalty no matter what:

Nobody cares what you think. Not one whit.

See, the Republican party knows it can count on your support--you've said yourselves that you'll vote for them "every time, without question." Consequently, why should they care what you think of them?

That's a serious question, BTW. You say you wish they were more conservative, but as long as you give them the one thing they want from you--your vote--why should they care what you want any more than they care what, say, Rosie O'Donnell wants?

I've heard it said that some 40% of the country will vote Republican no matter what, and about 40% will vote Democrat no matter what. Know what means? 80% of the people are absolutely meaningless in the election. They're predictable, known quantities, and the politicians know they can do pretty much whatever they want and "their people" will still vote for them. Since they're immutable, and since they generally cancel each other out, that makes them irrelevant.

The remaining 20% are the people that the media hacks like to call "swing voters." They're the people--the only people--that candidates have to persuade. Sure, many may lean one way or the other, but they're still open-minded enough to actually consider a candidate and make a decision about him, rather than mindlessly pressing a lever in exchange for an insincere promise to cut the size of government (hey, at least rats get a real, tangible food pellet). Those are the people who change elections. Yes, that's right, the fate of the country rests on about ten percent of the voters. Theirs are the opinions that candidates care about, and they are the people that candidates need to impress. So while we may listen to you on THR, and like your ideas, and agree, and care what you have to say, if you're not one of the 20% of the electorate that approaches the polls with the possibility to vote either way, you're not a factor. The only people who genuinely influence elections are the ones who listen to the candidate and evaluate his ideas, and make a decision based on that.

Nobody else matters.

Stevie-Ray
August 12, 2005, 10:38 PM
They don't control other parties, just themselves. At what point would their actions cause you to take your vote elsewhere? Their actions can piss me off to no end. But the alternative? No thanks. Tell you what; I could be persuaded to vote democrap this way.

Democrat ticket: John Dingell
Republican ticket: John McCain

Pork-barrel spending sucks, and this is coming from an American Indian and believe it or not a lifelong conservative.

But I'll bet when you're on the receiving end of that pork, 99% of you don't bitch.

Lone_Gunman
August 12, 2005, 11:18 PM
Rebar says:

You think that bashing Bush and ranting against the republicans advances anything except the liberal/left agenda? Nope.

But I disagree. As I have said many times, I have been a Republican since the 80's, have never voted for any presidential candidate except Republicans, including Bush twice, donated money to Bush in 2000, and am a member of the RNC.

That said, I feel I have every right to bash Bush on bad policy, especially on a forum such as this where most people are republican anyway.

What Rebar doesn't understand is that only by pointing out Bush's mistakes can the Republican party be changed from within. He harps on about the futility of third parties (with which I mostly agree), and encourages people to vote Republican no matter what the candidate actually is doing. He seems unwilling to discuss changing the Republican party from within for the better, which is what I believe most Bush discussion on this generally conservative forum is really about. He takes any suggestion that things to be changed as an attack on the party in general, and support for Democrats.

Rebar believes any condemnation of Bush is a vote of support for leftist Democrats. This is not true, at least when it comes from conservatives. Condemning bad Bush policy by fellow Republicans is an attempt to push the party back where it belongs, which is well to the right of where it is now.

No one here is saying Bush is bad, so I am voting for Kerry. We are saying Bush is bad, lets fix the party with a real conservative.

I am not trying to necessarily criticize Rebar with these observations, but I do think it is incorrect to assume that any disagreement people have with Bush policy comes from leftist Democrats.

hifi
August 13, 2005, 12:01 AM
Folks like Rebar and Marshall would rather see the country driven off the cliff at 75mph under Bush than 80 under Kerry.

Another observation on the possibility of a (L) costing a (R) an election: It seems like the only way you can get Republicans to at least play the part is if a Democrat is in the Whitehouse. That way they at least have to put up a front. :rolleyes:

Rebar
August 13, 2005, 01:20 AM
What Rebar doesn't understand is that only by pointing out Bush's mistakes can the Republican party be changed from within. He harps on about the futility of third parties (with which I mostly agree), and encourages people to vote Republican no matter what the candidate actually is doing. He seems unwilling to discuss changing the Republican party from within for the better, which is what I believe most Bush discussion on this generally conservative forum is really about.
Nonsense.

I've made at least a dozen posts in the past advocating working for change from within the republican party. I know it's "beat up on Rebar day", but that is a complete falsification of my position.

I'd also point out that my quote is 100% accurate when applied to the non-stop ranting of someone like hifi, who spews out the latest DU/Moveon.org/DNC talking points with the greatest glee, yet doesn't give the slightest hint on how they would make things better. How does that "push the party back where it belongs"?

Marshall
August 13, 2005, 02:02 AM
Here's another point to ponder, particularly to those of you (Rebar, Marshall, a few others) who advocate party loyalty no matter what:

Nobody cares what you think. Not one whit.
You seem to.


Folks like Rebar and Marshall would rather see the country driven off the cliff at 75mph under Bush than 80 under Kerry.
If that's the option, I would rather ride the elephant than an ass.



Where you two fail is that you have blinders on, your minds are riding the short bus. I may advocate party loyalty, never did I say "no matter what."

There are a vast amount of issues, not just spending, (can't believe I have to explain this :rolleyes: ). I find myself in step with the Republicans on most of them, from morality to guns, from abortion to military matters and foreign policy's and many places in between them.

Believe it or not, there are distinct differences between the parties, difference they base themselves on. It's not a stretch to know where a Democrat or Republican stands on 3/4ths of the available issues. So, it is very reasonable to assume that if a persons is in step with what the majority of their party is for and, against what the majority of the opposing party stands for, that person would obviously ride with their party, unless you think that party is screwed, but then you would be in the other parties car so, we're back where we started. Sure there are things I disagree with, but for me, the alternative of Democrat right now, is worse, far worse.

Oh and Fly, hello...Fly? You talk about listening to different candidates, taking their views into consideration and voting, what do you think primaries are for? :rolleyes:

So, you two boys, Fly & hifi, open up your minds, realize there is more to Republican and Democrat than one issue and one candidate, realize that candidates runs on these platforms for a reason, like mostly believing as their party does, and get off the short bus. Your comments and thinking are both distorted.

Oh I almost forgot. I always thought the voters that don't know who they are going to vote for, you know the ones, the ones they interview after the cute wittle town hall meetings that say "I just can't make up my mind", the swing voters, they're idiots.

dustind
August 13, 2005, 02:06 AM
I think in the future we should try and find where the pork leads and expose it to the public as a way to help kill these bills.

If a republican can't keep spending under control (and obey the constitution) then that person will loose my vote to the Libertarian candidate. So far only about 5% of my votes have gone to a non republican, but things are not looking good for the future.

The only way you can make a party change is to force it to change, asking doesn't work nearly as well as saying vote against the pork bills or else. If they aren't (figuratively speaking) sweating or begging then you aren't pressing enough. Also be sure to write them and tell them why you did or did not vote for them.

JohnKSa
August 13, 2005, 02:43 AM
You say you wish they were more conservative, but as long as you give them the one thing they want from you--your vote--why should they care what you wantYou don't improve a political party by not voting for it. That's how you weaken or kill a political party. You improve a political party by working from within.

A vote is an important tool, but it can only do so much.

publius
August 13, 2005, 05:34 AM
Actually, they've had considerably more: Bernie Sanders the US Rep from Vermont is a Socialist. An actual federal level election success, something the libertarians can only dream about.

I was talking about actual party affiliation, not views on issues. Sanders' affiliation is Independent. If you're going to count him as a victory for the Socialists, when I've never seen evidence he was even in the party, then it seems to me that you'd have to count former LP Presidential candidate Ron Paul as a victory for the Libertarians.

Edit: I don't count either one, but there is no doubt which party is more likely to have a seat in Congress: the one that's trying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29).

In recent elections, Libertarians have run far more candidates for office, at all levels, than all other third parties combined. In the 2004 elections, there were 377 Libertarian candidates for state legislative seats, compared with 108 Constitution Party candidates, 94 Green Party candidates, and 11 Reform Party candidates. In the 2000 elections, the party ran about 1,430 candidates at the local, state, and federal level. More than 1,600 Libertarians ran for office in the 2002 mid-term election. Accordingly, their combined vote totals have far exceeded those of other parties: in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections, Libertarian candidates for state House of Representatives received more than a million votes -- more than twice the votes received by all other minor parties combined.

Big Bad Wolf
August 13, 2005, 06:03 AM
You think that bashing Bush and ranting against the republicans advances anything except the liberal/left agenda? Nope.

... and you think remaining silent and letting the Republicans walk all over us does? There is some serious problems in the GOP right now and if it takes 4 to 8 years of a Democrat running the show for them to get back on their Conservative tracks so be it. The GOP needs a swift kick to the ass to get their act together and once again become the party we all support, if they don't see dissent from within and a decline at the voting booths what the hell is going to make them even want to examine changing their current ways? If it is not painfully obvious yet electing more RINO's and neo-cons to power and "going along with the plan" sure ain't getting it done. :barf:

dpesec
August 13, 2005, 07:56 AM
well the LP can try and follow the Spendocrat example, but I don't think it'll work. From what I know about the behavior of political animals, Spendocrats tend to vote Spendocrat regardless. Very few cross vote, Republicans vote for issues and the person. So there's not a solid voting block.

Pork, let's face it, everybody does it. So until we as a people can find a better way, we'll be faced with it. The first job of any politick is to get relected. That means getting votes. What better way to show people you're fighting for them, is to bring home the baccon.

BryanP
August 13, 2005, 08:07 AM
You think that bashing Bush and ranting against the republicans advances anything except the liberal/left agenda? Nope.

Why yes, yes I do. The further along they go with that crap the more likely the public at large is to say "Hey! Wait just a damn minute!" Then they'll vote for the Other Party. So not ranting and letting them know you are displeased will actually advance the Democrats.

And that's my political post for the weekend. Time to go to work for an exciting morning of server maintenance.

XLMiguel
August 13, 2005, 11:23 AM
Politicians learned long ago that they can buy a constituancy by doling out the public largess. The solution to the problem is getting rid of the profligates and elect fiscally responsible candidates. I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out which party you are most likely to find fiscally responsible candidates in :banghead:

politics, from the Greek, poli[?I], meaning 'many', and [I]tics, small blood sucking parasites:evil:

Rebar
August 13, 2005, 12:55 PM
I was talking about actual party affiliation, not views on issues. Sanders' affiliation is Independent.
Bernard ("Bernie") Sanders (born September 8, 1941) has been a member of the United States House of Representatives since 1991, representing the state of Vermont as an Independent Socialist. He is the only independent member of the House, and is one of very few self-described socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

He is a Socialist, or what I like to say, the only honest democrat.
In recent elections, Libertarians have run far more candidates for office, at all levels, than all other third parties combined.
That sounds like a lot, but compared to the total number of state legislative seats, it's tiny. Plus, it's winning that counts, and libertarians don't win. They haven't won in the last 30 years, they won't win in the next 30 years.
The GOP needs a swift kick to the ass to get their act together and once again become the party we all support
That party was the minority party for 38 years. It seems obvious that people aren't ready for a Goldwater-style GOP, and that they like neocons, because that's how they're voting.

The question is, do we hand power back to the democrats, who will make it their mission in life to geld gun owners for all time, or do we work from within the republicans to move them towards conservative/libertarian principles while mantaining the majority?

Simply put, it does suck that the GOP is pork barreling. But it'll be easier to earn our way out of the fiscal hole, then to get back our guns after the democrats take them.

publius
August 13, 2005, 02:07 PM
Plus, it's winning that counts, and libertarians don't win. They haven't won in the last 30 years, they won't win in the next 30 years.

I think you're missing my main point, which was that we are winning. We win every time part of the duopoly adopts one of our issues, bringing it from the fringe to the mainstream. Privatizing Socialist Security, school vouchers, and emissions trading are just a few examples. Those had to start somewhere, and ideas like those don't come from the safety of the mainstream parties. They start on the fringes, and work inward.

Now, our policies in those 3 areas have become Republican policies. That's winning the war of ideas, if not the elected offices.

Edit: wasn't aware we had an "Indepenent Socialist" party in America. Does it have any other members besides Sanders? Or is his affiliation really just Independent?

griz
August 13, 2005, 02:40 PM
Here's an honest question for the "change from within" folks.

Are there any examples of the Party becoming more conservative in the last few decades? The closest thing I can remember is Gingrich's contract, which I view as a reaction to a threat by a third party that was bleeding votes from the R's. If the results of the internal change plan are bigger government and more spending, it sounds like the plan has already failed. Again that's a real question, I'm not just trying to make a point with it.

publius
August 13, 2005, 03:29 PM
I'm a change from without kinda guy, but I'll answer your question. The answer is YES. There are examples, all the best ones being ideas swiped from the LP. As mentioned, those include privatizing socialist security, school vouchers, and emissions trading as notable examples.

The folks on the inside did that, and I salute them. We on the outside broke the ground which made it possible.

Flyboy
August 13, 2005, 03:35 PM
Nobody cares what you think. Not one whit.You seem to.
I think I was unclear. I care, as do, I think, most of the people on the board. I wouldn't be discussing this with everybody if I didn't. What I meant is that nobody in power cares where you think the party should go, because they don't have to. They don't have to earn your vote--you've already promised it to them. And I'm not referring to the "oh, I just can't make up my mind" type, I'm referring to people who don't make up their mind until after they actually hear the candidates' ideas (or at least learn who the candidates are going to be).

Griz makes a good point: the only example that comes to mind of the Republicans being fiscally restrained is when they were out of power and fighting for votes. I think there's something to that.

If the Republican candidates for office in your precinct reflect your views better than others, great, by all means, vote for them. Until you know who they are, though, and review things like their voting records (to find out if they actually live up to their promises), you can't possibly know what they're likely to do in office, just a self-affixed label.

Big Bad Wolf
August 13, 2005, 03:42 PM
The question is, do we hand power back to the democrats, who will make it their mission in life to geld gun owners for all time, or do we work from within the republicans to move them towards conservative/libertarian principles while mantaining the majority?



How do you plan on going about effecting change from the inside? What makes you think that those in total power care about the people in any way? Is Bush and the other neocons leaders listening to anyone let alone the simple voter?

No, the only way to get the GOP back on track is for them to see a decline in voters every other November, descent from the party core, and a decline in campaign donations, nothing else will get the GOP to do some self reflection. Nothing gets those in total power to listen then the threat they might lose power, nothing. If it means we run the chance of gridlocking the Congress and may have to put up with a Democrat President again for a few years so be it.

One month of Bush has been more harmful the a year of Clinton and so long as we keep majorities in the House the gun issue will not be a problem because they are the only reason we are not getting pummeled with new anti-gun laws now!

griz
August 13, 2005, 10:01 PM
Thanks Publius. I should have remembered the private SS accounts if nothing else. Even if it started as a LP idea, the administration deserves credit for spending a bit of capitol getting the idea in the mainstream.

Probasco
August 13, 2005, 11:14 PM
pork is in the eye of the beholder, if you lived in alaska, you would note that it has fewer highways than any state, less federal funding than any state, yet it provides us with much needed oil. gas? the roads will be a lot cheaper to use in the long run. now people have to fly everywhere they go. planes dont get very good mileage. just my 2 cents

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 01:20 AM
We win every time part of the duopoly adopts one of our issues, bringing it from the fringe to the mainstream.
First, seems to me only the republicans are bringing these ideas to the table, the democrats are having collective heart failure over privatizing SS for example. Next, even if it's the libertarians who bring these ideas to the table, voting for them is still a wasted vote. because they'll never get elected to impliment them. If you want libertarian policy implimented, vote republican.
wasn't aware we had an "Indepenent Socialist" party in America. Does it have any other members besides Sanders? Or is his affiliation really just Independent?
"Independent" doesn't describe anything, independent what, Socialist, Libertarian, Whig? He's a self proclaimed socialist, I take him at his word.
Are there any examples of the Party becoming more conservative in the last few decades?
I brought up the fact that the more conservative repuiblicans were in the minority for 38 years. There is no doubt the party has expanded to the left, diluting the conservative voice. But in exchange, they're winning more elections and now have the majority. The plain fact is America likes the new party better.

Threatening to leave them if they don't return to a losing strategy, that doesn't seem like much of a threat. America is swinging back towards conservatism, but it's not there yet, adapting to the real situation is just smart politics. And we get some things we want, like a stop to the war against law abiding gun owners and better judges on the bench.

Working within the party to nudge it more and more to the conservative/libertarian realm, as America can handle it, is a strategy that can work. Handing power back to the vengeful democrats, the party of Schumer, Fienstien, Kennedy, Hillary, Pelosi, and that crew, is just plain stupid.

Big Bad Wolf
August 14, 2005, 05:02 AM
If you want libertarian policy implimented, vote republican.

No, if you want bastardized LP policy implemented vote Republican. They take some of the LP's ideas and morph them into something totally futile and virtually unidentifiable from the original proposed LP policy. The LP called for true privatization of SS not the half assed idea Bush Co. is proposing. It is a start but Bush's plan is just another form of Government control of your retirement dollars and we all have seen how well the first SS plan went with the Government in control of it.

There is no doubt the party has expanded to the left, diluting the conservative voice. But in exchange, they're winning more elections and now have the majority. The plain fact is America likes the new party better.

Threatening to leave them if they don't return to a losing strategy, that doesn't seem like much of a threat. America is swinging back towards conservatism, but it's not there yet, adapting to the real situation is just smart politics. And we get some things we want, like a stop to the war against law abiding gun owners and better judges on the bench.

Working within the party to nudge it more and more to the conservative/libertarian realm, as America can handle it, is a strategy that can work. Handing power back to the vengeful democrats, the party of Schumer, Fienstien, Kennedy, Hillary, Pelosi, and that crew, is just plain stupid.

Nonsense.

Don't you see what is going on with the GOP? The Socialists gained power in the Democratic party in the late 70's and look where that got them. It is the same thing all over again just this time it's the GOP! It makes no difference any longer which party is in control, the Socialist lefty agenda moves forward.

The Socialist Democrats aren't going change and neither will these Socialists Republicans. To think the GOP's hard left turn is just a Republican gambit to pick up new voters and reintroduce some normal principals at select later dates is just ridiculous. The true Conservatives in the House are the only thing keeping gun control down at the moment, not the Senate and certainly not Bush. When the true Conservatives are all gone where will be then? We will be left with a bunch of Socialist Republicans who sympathize with gun control. Yeah, keep on supporting these dirtbags.

As for judges, yeah Republican justices have worked real well for us in the past as apparent by the constant hatred of their bad decisions by many here and in Conservative circles. Oh yeah 7 of the 9 SCOTUS justices were appointed by Republicans! Now at best as most GOP supporters and critics can tell Roberts will be just be another Souter. Even the head GOP cheerleader Ann Coulter is critical of him and being I am seeing more Democrats coming out in favor of Roberts then Republicans I am sure we will be stuck with another yet Republican appointed lemon.

The more power they gain the worse off we will be. I am convinced the best Congress at this point is a gridlocked Congress. At least it will slow the Socialist progression some because of partisan bickering and hatred for one another.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 05:45 AM
The LP called for true privatization of SS not the half assed idea Bush Co. is proposing.
More rediculous all-or-nothing rhetoric. This is why libertarians cannot win even minor local elections. If all-or-nothing is 99.999999999% likely to be nothing, you just might want to think about comprimise. Oh, I forgot, you'd rather have nothing, just so you can beat your chest about how libertarian you are.
It makes no difference any longer which party is in control, the Socialist lefty agenda moves forward.
I've already debunked this absurd notion that there's no difference between the parties a dozen times already.

By all means, if you want to live in some libertarian fantasy world where all you have to do is demand all or nothing on all your principles, and anyone who says no is a nazi/communist/whatever, go right ahead. However, some of us live in the real world, and will work with what we have to make things better as we can, or keep things from getting worse. Incrimental progress is a lot better than no progress at all, or going backwards.

Maybe someday you'll wake up, and realize something is better than nothing.

Big Bad Wolf
August 14, 2005, 06:39 AM
More rediculous all-or-nothing rhetoric. This is why libertarians cannot win even minor local elections. If all-or-nothing is 99.999999999% likely to be nothing, you just might want to think about comprimise. Oh, I forgot, you'd rather have nothing, just so you can beat your chest about how libertarian you are.

Totally absurd.

I will happy to settle for a compromise that stayed somewhat true to the original LP policy, but to claim Bush's plan is anywhere near 99.99% of what the LP's policy is is just totally misleading and is typical of neo-conservative arrogance and misdirection of today.

I've already debunked this absurd notion that there's no difference between the parties a dozen times already.

You have debunked nothing.

Limitless Government continues unimpeded.
The welfare state marches on.
States rights continue to be squashed.
Civil Liberties continue to erode.
Big Brother continues on without prejudice.
Deficits mount up.
Placating to the UN continues.
The border remains wide open.
A National ID will become reality.
The appeasing of China continues.

and on and on it goes.....

hifi
August 14, 2005, 07:19 AM
I've already debunked this absurd notion that there's no difference between the parties a dozen times already.

Oh yes, it certainly appears that way. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The only thing you've debunked is your credibility as a conservative..

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 10:14 AM
I've already debunked this absurd notion that there's no difference between the parties a dozen times already

Rebar, I think most people would agree that there is still a little difference between the two parties, but the Republican party is closing that gap rapidly and moving to the left as fast as it can under the neo-conservatives.

So, while there still is some difference, there certainly not much difference, and at some point in the near future there will be no difference, unless something inside the Republican party changes.

And I have to agree with others that you haven't debunked anything, though I have seen a fair amount of ranting, raving, foaming at the mouth, bashing everyone who disagrees with you, and apologizing for Bush and Republicans.


Incrimental progress is a lot better than no progress at all, or going backwards.

On what issues have we seen incremental progress by the Republicans?

Explain how Medicare Reform, McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, and CAFTA are incremental victories of a conservative agenda, Rebar. The truth is, there has been no incremental progress at all, with the exception of the gun issue, with the expiration of the AWB and passage of manufacturer liablity reform.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 02:17 PM
I had type this long response, then the site went down and I lost it, so this will be brief.

The fact is, Bush was better than the alternatives. You all can post DU/Moveon/DNC talking points bashing Bush until the cows come home, the fact remains Bush is vastly better then Gore/Kerry would have been. I recommended a viable course of action if you're dissatisfied, the Bush bashers only offer the unacceptable - letting the democrats win.

Which is their real purpose: there are DU trolls here who think if they can tear down the republicans enough, they can split the gun vote. The liberal/left desperately want to neuter the gun vote, which cost them the last two elections.

From starting fake "pro-hunting" organizations, to their leaders lying through their teeth that they're pro second amendment and only want reasonable gun control, to activists pretending to be one of us haunting gun boards to tear down the republicans, it's all one agenda.

Don't fall for it. Don't let the trolls come here and persuade you to do something directly against your interests. If you're a gun owner, if you value your RKBA, voting democrat is just plain stupid.

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 05:14 PM
As I have said before, not everyone who bashes Bush is a DU troll. The majority of people on this forum are Republican, and criticism of Bush to other Republicans serves to move the party to the right, not the left. I am pretty sure that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would be pretty uhappy with Bush, and I certainly would not think of them as DU Trolls.

Ony if the target audience is mainly Democrats is bashing Bush detrimental.

This is similar to disciplining a small child. If he acts badly, you correct him, not because you want to get rid of him, but because you want him to do better than he is doing.

The majority of people here would agree that Bush is better than Kerry. What we wish is that Bush would have been better than what he is.

It is all about changing the party from within. If free discussion is not considered, and simply disregarded as "Bush bashing" from DU Trolls, then changing the party from within will never happen.

Heck, I am happy to point of Bush's shortcomings, there are so many its easy to do. But that should not be misconstrued as support of the left. Quite the contrary, in fact, as I wish the Republican party would go back to their conservative roots.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 05:32 PM
There's a big difference between constructive criticism, and offering solutions, and the mindless Bush-bashing that's in this topic. Reading this thread from the beginning will offer plenty of proof that there are in fact DU trolls here.

Big Bad Wolf
August 14, 2005, 05:40 PM
I had type this long response, then the site went down and I lost it, so this will be brief.

The fact is, Bush was better than the alternatives. You all can post DU/Moveon/DNC talking points bashing Bush until the cows come home, the fact remains Bush is vastly better then Gore/Kerry would have been. I recommended a viable course of action if you're dissatisfied, the Bush bashers only offer the unacceptable - letting the democrats win.

Which is their real purpose: there are DU trolls here who think if they can tear down the republicans enough, they can split the gun vote. The liberal/left desperately want to neuter the gun vote, which cost them the last two elections.

From starting fake "pro-hunting" organizations, to their leaders lying through their teeth that they're pro second amendment and only want reasonable gun control, to activists pretending to be one of us haunting gun boards to tear down the republicans, it's all one agenda.

Don't fall for it. Don't let the trolls come here and persuade you to do something directly against your interests. If you're a gun owner, if you value your RKBA, voting democrat is just plain stupid.

Well there went all creditability for Rebar the "Conservative." :rolleyes:

You are the one hanging onto the new lefty policies of the Republicans and telling us it's somehow cathartically better that the Republicans bring forth this crap then the Democrats, regardless of who is doing the shoveling we are still being buried with crap. Which one of us is clinging to this new Liberal Republican party like a baby to a nipple? Which one of us is the Liberal troll from DU?

You say it's a fact a Gore or Kerry Presidency would have been worse. I disagree because the last time the Republicans actually acted like Republicans was when there was a Democrat in the White House. At least back then they had to play the game, now they don't even bother.

Republicans have proven they are irresponsible when they have all the power just as the Democrats did. If it is not painfully apparent yet one party rule is never a good thing.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 05:52 PM
Well there went all creditability for Rebar the "Conservative."
Errr... I never claimed to be a conservative, I'm an anti-leftist pro-RKBA voter.
Which one of us is the Liberal troll from DU?
That's the dumbest thing on this thread yet.
If it is not painfully apparent yet one party rule is never a good thing.
And yet you'll give that one party rule back to the democrats, why? Because they did such a great job the 38 years they had it before?

Big Bad Wolf
August 14, 2005, 06:09 PM
And yet you'll give that one party rule back to the democrats, why? Because they did such a great job the 38 years they had it before?

No, now this is the dumbest thing in this thread yet.

I never said hand power back to the Dems nor has anyone else, I hate the Dems but at least a gridlocked Congress was more beneficial then the one party rule Congress we have now. Can't pass liberal crap from either party when the 2 parties cannot even agree on what color ink they should be using to write this crap.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:13 PM
I hate the Dems but at least a gridlocked Congress was more beneficial then the one party rule Congress we have now.
Doesn't this require either giving power to the democrats either by giving them congress, or giving them the presidency? And how will you accomplish this by bashing Bush and the republicans?

hifi
August 14, 2005, 06:22 PM
You all can post DU/Move on/DNC talking points bashing Bush until the cows come home

Getting out of the U.N. is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point?

Slamming neocons for the fact that they have zero fiscal responsibility is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point?

Defending gun rights is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point?

What's also humorous is that you name the exact same organizations as other well trained neocon chimps.

As usual, you have absolutely zero argument, just alot of gibberish and yapping to try and drown out conservative voices. You're doing exactly what the leftist, socialist neocons on the radio have brainwashed you into doing. Congratulations at being a total tool!

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:34 PM
Bashing Bush is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Bashing republicans is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Dividing gun owners is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Making people not vote republican is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's likely a duck. You talk exactly like the most radical DU member on their boards, why is that I wonder?

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 06:38 PM
So you are against changing the party from within?

I am pro-2nd Amendment, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage. I support small government. I don't support large government welfare programs.

I think I would be very unpopular on DU. If I am a DU operative I am certainly well embedded here LOL.

I am not trying to make people not vote Republican, just trying to make them wake up and vote for a conservative in the primaries.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:42 PM
So you are against changing the party from within?
If you were paying the slightest bit of attention, you'd have seen I've stated many times that I advocate working within the party.

However, if you think causing them to lose elections will make them change, that's just dumb. If anything, it will make them go even further to the left.

Waitone
August 14, 2005, 06:44 PM
What will make them change?

I suscribe to the 2 X 4 theory of political interplay. A politician is a lot like a mule. Their attention span is about a long as the 2 X 4 with which they are smacked.

How would you affect change in the current variant of the republican party?

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 06:46 PM
If you were paying the slightest bit of attention, you'd have seen I've stated many times that I advocate working within the party

I know you keep saying that, but every time I bring up changing the party from within, you keep calling me a DU troll.

If the Republican party doesn't stand up for the conservative values I support, then the Democrats may as well win.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:47 PM
What will make them change?
Change comes from the grass roots. Change comes from supporting conservative/libertarian minded republicans at the local/state level. Sitting on your ass and voting once every four years then complaining about not having any good choices, cannot possibly make any change.

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 06:50 PM
Sitting on your ass and voting once every four years then complaining about not having any good choices, cannot possibly make any change.

You are right about that, Rebar. Thats why I am involved locally with the Republican Party, write letters, and support their fund raising efforts. So far, I am still not sure the leaders of the RNC are paying attention.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:52 PM
So far, I am still not sure the leaders of the RNC are paying attention.
Today, not really.

But today's local and state level leaders, tomorrow will be the national leaders. That's where you and I can make a big difference.

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 06:55 PM
But today's local and state level leaders, tomorrow will be the national leaders.

True, and for the long term that will work, I hope. But some of the stuff I am seeing the Republicans do right now makes me, well, panicky. Medicare Reform was a huge increase in social spending. I think McCain-Feingold was an abomination.

If the brakes aren't put on the neo-conservative agenda, what will be left of our republic when tomorrow's leaders reach office?

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 06:57 PM
If the brakes aren't put on the neo-conservative agenda, what will be left of the Republican when tomorrow's leaders reach office?
A lot more than if the democrats were in charge, that's for sure. In the meanwhile, we are getting some good things with the bad, with democrats, it would be all bad. That's the big difference.

hifi
August 14, 2005, 06:57 PM
Bashing Bush is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Bashing republicans is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Dividing gun owners is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

Making people not vote republican is a DU/Move on/DNC liberal talking point.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's likely a duck. You talk exactly like the most radical DU member on their boards, why is that I wonder?

Oh no, you aren't getting away with your 3rd Grade logic here. And I'm not "making" anyone vote any particular way. As you can see I have not even advocated a party. You're simply worried that more and more people are becoming disgusted with the Republic rats so you think you have to pull out the double barrel on anyone who doesn't lick Bush's butt.

And say things completely outlandish in order to draw attention to your ridiculous AM Radio inspired talking points. You don't want anyone out there behaving like a conservative to siphon votes away from the Democans. Face it, you're a simple minded party loyalist.

I suppose if I'm opposed to censorship of porno sites I'm a porno star or porno director.

If I'm opposed to censorship of gore/death/macabre sites then I suppose I'm a sick psychopathic killer.

I suppose that if I'm opposed to taking Howard Stern off the air and censoring him, I must be a big fan.

Your God given tools of logic have not progressed beyond the third grade level, Rebar!

Lone_Gunman
August 14, 2005, 06:59 PM
I think we are paying too big of a price for the good things we are getting right now, and would have just been better off if Bush hadn't tried to help us.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 07:02 PM
Your God given tools of logic have not progressed beyond the third grade level, Rebar!
Your posts speak for themselves.

At least I have 3rd grade logic, you have none whatsoever. I especially like how your first responses are always personal attacks, talk about grade school.

hifi
August 14, 2005, 07:04 PM
A lot more than if the democrats were in charge, that's for sure. In the meanwhile, we are getting some good things with the bad, with democrats, it would be all bad. That's the big difference.

Simple minded party loyalists like Rebar would rather have the country die in 50 years than 40. That's basically what they stand for. Slow decay. It's a selfish outlook as well, because they're only worried about themselves and their way of life. They'll support a global socialist as long as he throws them a scrap of meat once in awhile.

A winning strategy is not defense. Especially not when your party controls all the levers of power. Can't you see that Rebar? Why have you been so blinded by the neocons on the radio?

Waitone
August 14, 2005, 07:05 PM
Good discussion turned bad.

****poof****

hifi
August 14, 2005, 07:05 PM
Your posts speak for themselves.

At least I have 3rd grade logic, you have none whatsoever. I especially like how your first responses are always personal attacks, talk about grade school.

I realize you are basically a lost cause. There's no reason to argue your silly points other than my own personal entertainment and to show the fence sitters what clowns you party loyalists are.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 07:07 PM
There's not reason to argue your silly points other than my own personal entertainment and to show the fence sitters what clowns you party loyalists are.
So people who are republicans are clowns? That's not a very nice thing to say, nor would I call that acceptable THR behavior. Nor is admitting you're just arguing for the sake of argument. That's called "trolling" by the way.

hifi
August 14, 2005, 07:11 PM
and to show the fence sitters what clowns you party loyalists are.

So people who are republicans are clowns?

Do you have a reading deficiency?

Notice how hardcore neocons are always masters of putting words in people's mouths as well. They know their logic is flawed, so they have to mis-represent everyone else's views.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 07:14 PM
Do you have a reading deficiency?
No, I read what you wrote. You wrote that people who are loyal to the republican party are clowns. Maybe you have a write deficiency where you write what you didn't really mean?

hifi
August 14, 2005, 07:14 PM
Good discussion turned bad.

****poof****


Yea, I can see the writing on the wall. After getting kicked to the curb so many times, Rebar's main goal now is just to keep saying outlandish **** to get this thread closed. I'm out.

Rebar
August 14, 2005, 07:18 PM
lol, you accusing me of writing outlandish things, that's actually funny.

Marshall
August 14, 2005, 09:14 PM
I've seen anti-republican am radio talk shows brought up in 3-4 of hifi's post and they have never even been part a the subject. The only people I have ever seen that have a fixation against them like that are liberal democrats.

If hifi isn't a full out liberal democrat with a capital L&D, I'll kiss your.....well, clean your gun. And hifi, you can tell me how much your a libertarian, how much your not a liberal democrat all you want but you so don't waste your breath, your post history speaks fot itself.

pax
August 14, 2005, 09:36 PM
That's enough.

pax

If you enjoyed reading about "Big-spending Republicans" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!