Interesting article by Reaganite on

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/.../index_np1.html

 

some key quotes for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing:

 

-"Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars."

 

-"Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally. "

 

-"A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

 

-"Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government. "

 

-"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak. "

 

-"Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power. "

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so vote in somebody WORSE on the issue to protest Bush?

 

BRILLIANT!

-=Mike

..."Bush, you spend too much money --- so I'll vote for somebody who spends even more!"

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Ah, so vote in somebody WORSE on the issue to protest Bush?

 

BRILLIANT!

-=Mike

..."Bush, you spend too much money --- so I'll vote for somebody who spends even more!"

Yes, but you forget that this is the kind of race we have going here Mike. Where so many people feel that their choice for president is simply picking the least of two evils. I wonder how many people will vote impulsively while in the booth? Rhetorical of course.

[Vyce 0]

Even rhetorically speaking - "serious" conservatives will NOT view Kerry as the lesser of two evils when he's compared to Bush.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ah, so vote in somebody WORSE on the issue to protest Bush?

 

That's not the article's theme. I suggest you read it more carefully.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so vote in somebody WORSE on the issue to protest Bush?

 

BRILLIANT!

    -=Mike

..."Bush, you spend too much money --- so I'll vote for somebody who spends even more!"

Yes, but you forget that this is the kind of race we have going here Mike. Where so many people feel that their choice for president is simply picking the least of two evils. I wonder how many people will vote impulsively while in the booth? Rhetorical of course.

As Vyce said, if you're discussing spending, there is not a chance you can honestly claim that Kerry is a "lesser evil".

 

Voting for Kerry because, well, a Republican Congress will curb him in is foolishness. Vote for Kerry in the expectations that somebody will reign him in?

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

It's an argument I've heard before, liberal prez + conservative legislative branch will = restraint in spending. Which sort of makes sense, given how all of Bush's social plans get passed without hesitation (making Kerry's claims of cut social programs, especially schools, fucking ridiculous.) It also makes Bush's continued claims of being a small gov't condidate ridiculous.

 

I'd much rather have a economically conservative candidate, which may not happen in my lifetime. Hell, I wouldn't care if he had the social views of Pat Buchanan(exaggeration). President's social leanings don't really make much difference, aside from appointing judges.

[Guest CronoT]

It's an argument I've heard before, liberal prez + conservative legislative branch will = restraint in spending. Which sort of makes sense, given how all of Bush's social plans get passed without hesitation (making Kerry's claims of cut social programs, especially schools, fucking ridiculous.) It also makes Bush's continued claims of being a small gov't condidate ridiculous.

 

I'd much rather have a economically conservative candidate, which may not happen in my lifetime. Hell, I wouldn't care if he had the social views of Pat Buchanan(exaggeration). President's social leanings don't really make much difference, aside from appointing judges.

We all saw how hard Gingrich rode Clinton's ass on anything involving spending that would require Congress' approval.

 

Like I've said, Mike, you can't have it both ways.

[Guest MikeSC]

It's an argument I've heard before, liberal prez + conservative legislative branch will = restraint in spending. Which sort of makes sense, given how all of Bush's social plans get passed without hesitation (making Kerry's claims of cut social programs, especially schools, fucking ridiculous.) It also makes Bush's continued claims of being a small gov't condidate ridiculous.

 

I'd much rather have a economically conservative candidate, which may not happen in my lifetime. Hell, I wouldn't care if he had the social views of Pat Buchanan(exaggeration). President's social leanings don't really make much difference, aside from appointing judges.

We all saw how hard Gingrich rode Clinton's ass on anything involving spending that would require Congress' approval.

 

Like I've said, Mike, you can't have it both ways.

Um, who's asking for it "both ways"? Mentioning that voting for somebody who will spend more than you like in the hopes of gridlock is stupid is somehow contradictory to this?

 

Gingrich, like it or not, led the House --- WHO CONTROLS THE PURSESTRINGS. Newt, kind of, DID HIS JOB.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

I don't get the 'have it both ways' statement, but that's exactly the point. They gave money to Clinton very begrudgingly. That's good! They suddenly lost their minds and started spending shitloads whenever Bush came up with some new idea. That's bad, and really doesn't make sense to me. Not many people have taken Bush to task for spending to much. You only hear criticism for the tax cuts.

 

I think that's why you hear a lot about the so called 'neo-cons' taking over. Economic conservatives would have raised their voices if there were many of them left. Obviously the idea still holds appeal to many Americans, as Bush still claims he's small government. Probably a holdover from when McCain kicked his ass in NH, running largely on a small-government platform.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And look what happened when Newt and pals tried to control the pursestrings...

 

OMGGOVERNMENTSHUTDOWN2005...

[Guest CronoT]

It's an argument I've heard before, liberal prez + conservative legislative branch will = restraint in spending. Which sort of makes sense, given how all of Bush's social plans get passed without hesitation (making Kerry's claims of cut social programs, especially schools, fucking ridiculous.) It also makes Bush's continued claims of being a small gov't condidate ridiculous.

 

I'd much rather have a economically conservative candidate, which may not happen in my lifetime. Hell, I wouldn't care if he had the social views of Pat Buchanan(exaggeration). President's social leanings don't really make much difference, aside from appointing judges.

We all saw how hard Gingrich rode Clinton's ass on anything involving spending that would require Congress' approval.

 

Like I've said, Mike, you can't have it both ways.

Um, who's asking for it "both ways"? Mentioning that voting for somebody who will spend more than you like in the hopes of gridlock is stupid is somehow contradictory to this?

 

Gingrich, like it or not, led the House --- WHO CONTROLS THE PURSESTRINGS. Newt, kind of, DID HIS JOB.

-=Mike

Yeah, he did his job. He was also malicious about it, and used his position to undermine President Clinton's authority. If anyone did that to Bush today, they'd be called a traitor, or worse. Oh, wait; that's right. They did call Jim Jeffords a traitor when he switched parties and gave the Dem's control of the Senate. They also called Sen. Daschale a traitor, for doing his job.

 

For the sixth time, Mike, you can't have it both ways.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

did call Jim Jeffords a traitor when he switched parties and gave the Dem's control of the Senate.

 

He was, at least to the GOP. Bitch-ass faggot used Republican money to get elected then turned his back...

[Guest CronoT]

did call Jim Jeffords a traitor when he switched parties and gave the Dem's control of the Senate.

 

He was, at least to the GOP. Bitch-ass faggot used Republican money to get elected then turned his back...

Actually, the reason Jeffords gave for switching parties, was because he felt Bush no longer represented him, or his conservative interests. So, basically, Bush shat on people until he got tired of it, so he decided to do something about it. That truely is the beauty of democracy, when you can tell someone who's been acting like an asshole to you to go shove it.

[Styles 0]

did call Jim Jeffords a traitor when he switched parties and gave the Dem's control of the Senate.

 

He was, at least to the GOP. Bitch-ass faggot used Republican money to get elected then turned his back...

Actually, the reason Jeffords gave for switching parties, was because he felt Bush no longer represented him, or his conservative interests. So, basically, Bush shat on people until he got tired of it, so he decided to do something about it. That truely is the beauty of democracy, when you can tell someone who's been acting like an asshole to you to go shove it.

Shove it.

[2GOLD 0]

Is this f*cking election over yet?

 

Can I just go vote now and forget about the bickering till it ends, in 2006?

[Special K 0]

We'll be extremely lucky if it's died down by 2006

[2GOLD 0]

We'll be extremely lucky if it's died down by 2006

 

I think we'll be extremely lucky if the recounts are done by 2006.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, he did his job. He was also malicious about it, and used his position to undermine President Clinton's authority.

As Clinton did to him. Your point is...?

If anyone did that to Bush today, they'd be called a traitor, or worse. Oh, wait; that's right. They did call Jim Jeffords a traitor when he switched parties and gave the Dem's control of the Senate. They also called Sen. Daschale a traitor, for doing his job.

 

For the sixth time, Mike, you can't have it both ways.

Nobody called Daschle a traitor, and they called Jeffords a traitor to the party --- you know, a MILD comment in comparison to what the Dems have said about Zell Miller. I can go down some of the lovely sentiments directed towards Miller by his fellow party members.

 

You are the one wanting it both ways, and you've yet to explain how I want it both ways.

Actually, the reason Jeffords gave for switching parties, was because he felt Bush no longer represented him, or his conservative interests. So, basically, Bush shat on people until he got tired of it, so he decided to do something about it. That truely is the beauty of democracy, when you can tell someone who's been acting like an asshole to you to go shove it.

Actually, he was upset because Bush wouldn't sell out everything on behalf of the Dairy Compact, which is ALL Jeffords gives two shits about. So, he went to the Dems in hopes of gaining more power to protect the Dairy Compact.

 

And, as usual, his political instincts could have hardly been worse.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Actually, the reason Jeffords gave for switching parties, was because he felt Bush no longer represented him, or his conservative interests. So, basically, Bush shat on people until he got tired of it, so he decided to do something about it.

Actually, among other things, Jeffords stated that some hippie special education bill wasn't getting "properly" funded by Bush. And Bush "shat" on him just a month or two after the election.

 

That truely is the beauty of democracy, when you can tell someone who's been acting like an asshole to you to go shove it.

 

Damn straight, which is why I wished Jeffords would die a slow painful death from cancer. I'd wish for testicle cancer, but seeing how he has no balls to begin with, I just wished his liver would get hit...

[Guest MikeSC]

That truely is the beauty of democracy, when you can tell someone who's been acting like an asshole to you to go shove it.

 

Damn straight, which is why I wished Jeffords would die a slow painful death from cancer. I'd wish for testicle cancer, but seeing how he has no balls to begin with, I just wished his liver would get hit...

You could wish for ovarian cysts for Jeffords.

-=Mike

...Who thinks people who would assume that a person would switch control of the Senate for perfectly altruistic reasons are hilariously naive...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

...Who thinks people who would assume that a person would switch control of the Senate for perfectly altruistic reasons are hilariously naive...

 

He did.

 

And North Korea promised us they wouldn't make any nuclear boom-booms...

[Guest MikeSC]

...Who thinks people who would assume that a person would switch control of the Senate for perfectly altruistic reasons are hilariously naive...

 

He did.

 

And North Korea promised us they wouldn't make any nuclear boom-booms...

BTW, I bet Halliburton is behind N. Korea's nuclear program.

 

Halliburton: Finding New Ways to Fuck the World

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh for the love of God. Conservatives aren't so conservative when they control all three houses (reps, senate, WH.) Liberals would likely, yes, be even worse.

 

I don't understand why some people and their love for the Republican Party are blinded to these facts.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh for the love of God. Conservatives aren't so conservative when they control all three houses (reps, senate, WH.) Liberals would likely, yes, be even worse.

 

I don't understand why some people and their love for the Republican Party are blinded to these facts.

Look at spending from 1998-2000. If not for a ridiculous stock bubble (which Greenspan warned about long before it burst), we'd have been in the red in a major way as NOBODY wanted to curtail spending.

 

Congress' top goal is to get re-elected, not to maintain party loyalty.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And spending wouldn't have been worse if you had a Republican with no interest in rejecting a spending bill? See, that's not the problem, the problem isn't that all Republicans are big spenders or that Democrats are conservatives, because that's not true.

 

The point is that Bush hasn't had a spine to not sign bills for every $2 million community swimming pool or $70,000 toilet that's come his way.

[Guest MikeSC]

And spending wouldn't have been worse if you had a Republican with no interest in rejecting a spending bill? See, that's not the problem, the problem isn't that all Republicans are big spenders or that Democrats are conservatives, because that's not true.

 

The point is that Bush hasn't had a spine to not sign bills for every $2 million community swimming pool or $70,000 toilet that's come his way.

Bush, idiotically, tried to avoid causing anger by vetoing bills. He wanted to make peace with the Dems and suffered for it.

 

Again, when asked for his biggest mistake, I wish he mentioned not vetoing a bill, as his spending has been absolutely horrible.

 

However, as bad as Bush has been, Kerry will be worse and I don't have faith in the GOP holding out should, somehow, Kerry make his ludicrous spending popular.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

And spending wouldn't have been worse if you had a Republican with no interest in rejecting a spending bill? See, that's not the problem, the problem isn't that all Republicans are big spenders or that Democrats are conservatives, because that's not true.

 

The point is that Bush hasn't had a spine to not sign bills for every $2 million community swimming pool or $70,000 toilet that's come his way.

Bush, idiotically, tried to avoid causing anger by vetoing bills. He wanted to make peace with the Dems and suffered for it.

 

Again, when asked for his biggest mistake, I wish he mentioned not vetoing a bill, as his spending has been absolutely horrible.

 

However, as bad as Bush has been, Kerry will be worse and I don't have faith in the GOP holding out should, somehow, Kerry make his ludicrous spending popular.

-=Mike

Mike why are you talking like you work in the White House next to the guy? I mean come on. Quit putting words in Bush's mouth. Peace with the Dems? Nice idea. Hope you're right too. Got a link to him saying so?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Um, Bush did try to make nice with the Dems when he got into the office. He even let Uncle Ted write that god-awful education bill. Hell, the guy spends more than any liberal could in their wildest dreams, which makes me wonder why these people don't like the guy...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Um, Bush did try to make nice with the Dems when he got into the office. He even let Uncle Ted write that god-awful education bill. Hell, the guy spends more than any liberal could in their wildest dreams, which makes me wonder why these people don't like the guy...

I heard that Iraq thing kinda bummed some folks out. Hey, is Afganistan still there or did we blow it off the map? Anyone?