You cling to, celebrate and take pride in your conservative political ideology, like most people take pride in their heritage or last name.

god, guns, gays, and abortion...

when the Repulocrats can get beyond the knee jerk on these, and begin to speak about other nuances in todays Reality...then i may agree with you, David

your writing makes me hope that those with the same political affiliation will read and heed..

unfortunately more seem to fall into the DeLay, Limbaugh, Hannity,Coulter school of belittle, shout down, and shift topic...distract...distract...distract!!

those, such as yourself and some others i have found here...willing to discuss things honestly...from BOTH artificial "sides" of the political spectrum...do nothing but help folks get a handle on, and Understand Issues..

would that more open discourse could occur WITHOUT false "labels"

hey..who knows..we could propose a whole governmental system based on..i dunno..accurate representation of the population, without gerrymandering...and they could discuss the problems and issues that face society ...and maybe....i dunno..try and solve them in a non-adversarial fashion where good ideas get implemented ...and the People tat voted them in were actually represented..you know, the breathing folks..not the "legal entities" on K street...

what the fuck am i saying..

sorry...silly Fantasy...i know

Excelsior!

While I disagree with you on whether "conservative" or "Liberal" are valid generalizations, I agree with your personal politics. The ones outlined in the body of your post.

Even if this is all I ever agree with you about, I whole heartedly agree that internet debate is the new heartbeat of political reform. It will only grow in importance. We live in exciting times!

hey..who knows..we could propose a whole governmental system based on..i dunno..accurate representation of the population, without gerrymandering

gonzo:

You would have my support on that issue. I think the wave of gerrymandering Republican politicians have carried out is incredibly wrong. I hear the argument that Democrats did it before, while they were in power, but it's a childish excuse.

It's the wrong use of power. Instead, Republicans should work to reform the system so that districts are created through a system that is as unbiased and mathematical as possible.

Anyway, thanks for your comments.

David

You cling to, celebrate and take pride in your conservative political ideology...

Steve,

I take pride in the power of free debate, and the ability of average people to shift the direction of government when needed. In terms of conservative ideology, the whole purpose of my post is to point out the fact that conservatives are all over the map.

It is our intellectual diversity that makes us strong, because we always have to defend what we believe. If you can't defend what you believe, then you should consider believing something else.

Thanks,

David

David...

you have just moved up some notches, and have earned my personal Respect for practicing what ya Preach..many thanx for Rational Discourse

would that all follow such an Example..

maybe then we could get the People's work done and continue the American Experiment in the Spirit which it was Founded..

i can Dream, can't i?

Excelsior!

You do realize don't you David that this is the exact same argument Democrats used for 30-40 years in celebration of their diversity. And they used to get critized for being wildly, er, all over the map.

now ya got me ta pondering...

about the gerrymandering Issue..both "sides" are wrong when they do it..ever since the phrase was coined..

here's a Soloution ta ponder...

get a few kids at M.I.T. with some computers..have them write a program, feed it the Census data along with town, county and state boundary info...that's it..nothing else..

simplicity really...the FEC shoulda thought of it years ago...heaven knows they get paid a helluva lot more than lil ole me ta come up with this kinda stuff...

so how about it..Repubocrats and Demlicans alike...yas up fer a fair fight?

i also wonder where the whole "term limits" bullshit went too...anyone else remember that piece of hype?

i seem to remember we were supposed to be "governed" by citizens...not "ruled" by a professional oligarchy...how about 3 terms for Congress...2 for Senators..neither exclusive of the other, but both as absolute as the Law for the Presidency...

that'll flush some of the turds from the public trough...take away the incentives to make a "career" of fucking the Citizenry and perhaps they would start trying to care for their constituency's needs, rather than obsessing over filling the coffers of their re-election warchests...

that's two fer Discussion...

ring the bell fer Round One!

Excelsior!

Well Temple, all the 'diverse' Democrats fled their party and brought their loony diversity to the Republican party in the last 30-40 years.

Dave

Yeah Dave, when I think of Republicans today, I think of the Democrat Party through the ages. Sure, I think everyone does, really. And spare me your version of "everyman."

David's argument is the same 'tis all I was saying.

>points up to #8 and whispers<

aww...c'mon folks..there's some red meat there!!

geeez...

{8^)

Excelsior!

It would be lovely if that were true, but in today's GOP diversity of opinion is often met with coerson and sanctions. Stepping on the sacred cow-pies is the basis for a stoning. Unswerving loyalty to the cause, to the ruling clique, and to the President is what is really valued, not debate; anything less is punished.

I agree that the GOP does have many factions, but the difference of opinion are conflicts over core values, not spats over doctrine. The diversity of the GOP is not the kind that creates a rich dialog, it is the kind that causes domestic violence. The GOP cannot and will not persist in its current form much longer, the internal pressures are to great. If McCain gets the nomination in 2008 (and he likely will), then the religious right will likely stay home or bolt to the Constitution party or something. Likewise, McCain's progressive Republicans will ditch if a religious nut or tool, like JEB, takes the nomination. Either way, the inherent contradictions are quickly pulling apart the GOP. 2008 will be the last hurrah.

I'm guessing that characterizing a 'debate' as a 'gunfight in the old west' automatically make one a Republican.

Too much irony for me there, Davey.

Another question:

And if a Republican 'misspeaks' during a wild west debate, does that mean he shot himself in the mouth?

ie. Will a self-referential, paradoxical logic debating error make you a "Hunter S. Thompson" of semantics?

Just wonderin'.

xxoo,
Shark [who -- as yer typical 'liberal' -- prefers debating with *water balloons and *cream pies]





*true 'diversity'

Sahrk..i heartily approve of utilizing pie as a debating tool..

unfotunately..i keep forgetting to defrost the ones i throw..

ah well..so much for highbrow discourse...

Excelsior!

argh..Shark even..damned dyslexia

my apologies..

Excelsior!

In terms of conservative ideology, the whole purpose of my post is to point out the fact that conservatives are all over the map.

I didn't mean my comment in a judgemental way as much as just an observation. Just about every post of yours is about the joy of being a conservative and the pleasure of not being a liberal.

Just callin it like I see it, I'm not saying 'aha' at the same time.

If you can't defend what you believe, then you should consider believing something else.

what are you defending your belief from?

Holy POOP ~~~

in memory of the pope ~~~

I thought this was an old post from April 1st until I went back and looked that it was posted today--April 5th!

Those damn left-wing liberals! They are cunning and baffling; we must never underestimate them: this is obviously one of their crafty (not a Witch pun!) attempts at black-ops reverse Disinformation.

Steve nails Flanagan: "...Just about every post of yours is about the joy of being a conservative and the pleasure of not being a liberal."

Yea, he doth protest too much.

Come outta the closet, Dave!

You know you get nauseated listening to Bush speak in public -- just like the rest of us. You look into those too-close-together eyes and wonder if Barbara shoulda had an abortion.

And you think to yerself, "Hell, I'd have gladly paid for it with taxpayer money."

C'mon, man, fess up.

Show us yer "diversity."

>>If McCain gets the nomination in 2008 (and he likely will), then the religious right will likely stay home or bolt to the Constitution party or something. Likewise, McCain's progressive Republicans will ditch if a religious nut or tool, like JEB, takes the nomination. Either way, the inherent contradictions are quickly pulling apart the GOP. 2008 will be the last hurrah.<<

As a Republican this sounds great to me. I just hope that it's the McCain nomination that does it so we can keep the good old party name. BTW, I'm not sure JEB is the catalyst you think he is. Another Bush is more likely to hold the party together than the break it apart.

Dave

/sigh

in 2000 i was ready to vote for McCain..after the shit Rove and Company pulled on him in South Carolina...i fervently Wished he would split off an drun on Teddy Rosevelt's Bull Moose Party ticket..knowing what a big fan of Teddy's he was/is

instead, he folded liek an accordian and chose to be a "good Republican"...bent over and took it with no lube and has since whore'd himself out for the Shrub in all things..

pragmatism understands why he did it...and that he hopes to be "the Man" for this next fiasco in '08..

but i can't get with "pragmatism" of this kind..if someone will bend over for hsi Foe once...he can and will do so again...

and i don't want the guy/girl in the White House to be ANYBODY's bitch

not his Party's..not the "special interests"...nobody's

broke my heart...i would have worked hard for him ...he did have my Respect

Excelsior!

I don't if McCain can win the GOP nomination...it's possible, not hardly a given.

That being said, if he does get the GOP nod, there is the possibility of some Religious Right guy running as an Independent or for a Third Party, and getting a sizable (5%) chunk of the vote. Possibly large enough to elect Hillary... :-/

"I don't if McCain can win the GOP nomination"

That should be "I don't KNOW if McCain can win the GOP nomination in 2008"...

Sorry... :-/

During the recent election, McCain went from being a "hero" to a whore with no shred of integrity -- which ironically qualifies him for a run at the Presidency.

...And rumor has it that he went so far as to give Bush a blow-job in the Oval Office...

President Bush (his administration) has borrowed some $700 billion of your payroll taxes that he now says will never be paid back. In fact, just last year (2004), on the president's watch, $156 billion (and change) of your Social Security payroll tax dollars went for what he calls worthless pieces of paper.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_03.php#005352

Robbyrob, the very name of the website you reference makes anything you take from there suspect. And in fact, the analysis of how Bush has handled the debt which you linked to is muddled and misdirecting. The last part about the public debt is the only part that makes sense. Yes, Bush has been president during an increase in the debt, but how bad a thing that is in relative terms is an open question, and it certainly didn't create the problems with social security as the article you link to suggests.

Dave

Dave when I first saw what you had posted my hair stood up,I said "oh damm another religious fanatic"..then I read your article and I began calming down because you actually sounded like a reasonable man and not someone who is trying to push his agenda on others like the Fanatic religious right..I am 75 yrs old and I have watched our country become a country of haters..we no longer respect others who disagree with us..we no longer have discussions instead we have loud debates followed by misleading ads on TV ...I think your big tent has holes in it...when your party starts to debate your differences your party will splinter just as we have in the D party with Nader's party..
Gonzo put it very well on the issues that divide us and sounded like a reasonable person ..He even said he would have voted for McCain as I would have also ..In fact I campaigned for him but now I wouldn't give you two cents for him for the same reasons that Gonzo talked about..I guess that makes us independents at least it does me as I have voted for Nixson : Ike: Reagan..
Dave says the ..:" all the 'diverse' Democrats fled their party and brought their loony diversity to the Republican party in the last 30-40 years"..well Dave this is just what I meant about a world of HATERS...Do you mean to say that just because they have a different opinion they are LOONIES...
..Back to your article ..I voted to to get rid of the D congress when Gingrich led the revolt ...how about you guys doing the same and get rid of the Delays and Santorems who are just as corrupted as the D congress when they had the power..

Temple,

I think you have two good points:
1) The Republican party has become more diverse, though, I think it's more intellectually diverse than culturally. Culturally, our track record is poor and that needs to be addressed.

2) Two, Republicans have moved into a space that in previous years was occupied mainly by Democrats. I will say that many conservatives have brought this up, but it's a point to emphasize. It used to be that conservatives were more oriented towards isolationist philosophy (we leave them alone, they leave us alone); now it's more of a liberal mantra. Democrats historically have been very strong on defense, and very decisive in terms of offense as well (I give you FDR and JFK as two solid examples).

I could go on, but I think the point is made... Conservatives changed their way of thinking over the decades. Part of the reason for that change is the constant dialogue we have over WHAT we believe and WHY we believe it, and the insistence that if you don't know why you believe what you believe, you should either become better informed or change your thinking.

Thanks,

David

what are you defending your belief from?

Excellent question. Which belief are you referring to, my belief that the Republican party is intellectually diverse? I can give you tons of examples, though I might not have time until later.

But, off the cuff, look at Peggy Noonan's recent critique of President Bush's acceptance speech. You can find all of Ms. Noonan's articles at Opinionjournal.com.

In addition, look at the flack that President Bush took over pushing for the Medicare changes we saw implemented a couple of years back. Personally, I think that whole effort was a perfect example of liberal thinking: "Let's throw money at the problem and see if it helps." Sorry, but thats my view.

As for the comment made by another person about John McCain. McCain has been called "the Democrat's favorite Republican;" yet, McCain has shown the same rock-solid loyalty to his party that Senator Leiberman has shown for his party. They are the kind of people who you don't always agree with but whom you do respect.

Will McCain get nod in 2008 from Republicans? I have no idea. If he does, I will enthusiastically vote for him in the polls, as will Republicans of all stripes.. And Democrats, who know that McCain is a true moderate, can as well.

Thanks,

David

what are you defending your belief from?

Excellent question. Which belief are you referring to, my belief that the Republican party is intellectually diverse?

Not actually, although I do enjoy reading about all perspectives.

No, what I meant was, why have you chosen to make the 'virtues of conservatism' most all that you talk about? Bush has to pay many commentators and bloggers to gush about conservatism and his political ideology the way that you do, apparently for free.

I make no judgement, David, on the 'worthiness' of focusing on one topic to blog about. That's what I've done too. It's alright with me, I'm not criticizing that. But I mentioned that most all your posts were about the joys of conservatism, and your response was that you needed to defend what you believe in.

ugh, sorry forgot to end italics.

Thanks David for answering the questins with reason. Glad you got my nonpartisan point.

Still can't agree with your overall panning of the Democrat side over the intellectual superiority of the Republican side.

But, hey, you got a convert. Previously "I'm a Libertarian" Dave N is now an "out" Republican. :-)

Leiberman..no wonder Gore lost !

>>Dave says the ..:" all the 'diverse' Democrats fled their party and brought their loony diversity to the Republican party in the last 30-40 years"..well Dave this is just what I meant about a world of HATERS...Do you mean to say that just because they have a different opinion they are LOONIES...<<

No, I mean that because they are irrational religious fanatics who want to impose their idea of morality on the entire world they are loonies. Anyone care to argue that point?

Dave

>>But, hey, you got a convert. Previously "I'm a Libertarian" Dave N is now an "out" Republican. :-)<<

Do pay attention, Temp. I've posted this at least 3 or 4 times on other discussions. After 25 years as a Libertarian activist I realized the party was no closer to getting anything done than it was in 1972, so like a lot of sensible Libertarians I jumped ship and joined the Republican Liberty Caucus an organization designed to promote the Liberty traditions of the Republican party and get pro-Liberty candidates elected. I'm still a libertarian (not the small 'l'), but I'm with the GOP now rather than the LP.

Dave

Dave now I am really confused,,..you said...No, I mean that because they are irrational religious fanatics who want to impose their idea of morality on the entire world they are loonies. Anyone care to argue that point?"..
These right wing religious fanatics where never in the Democratic party ..how could they have been when they don't believe in abortion and think the country should be run according to the bible..As I have posted I have voted Republican before but this is why I can't stand that party anymore because they are run by the religious right.

Wow, Georgio. How old are you? The Democratic party was the party of 'traditional values' like cross burning, lynching, bible thumping, book banning and snake wrassling funamentalism for years and years before it got dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century in the 1960s. The Kennedy/Johnson revolution in the party eventually drove out the dixiecrats and the doe faces and religious zealots in the 1970s and after toying around with going indpendent as the Dixiecrats had tried in 1948 or founding their own party they drifted into the naively welcoming Republican party and now they or more likely their kids one generation removed from their Democrat roots, are an entrenched minority.

Dave

Lou Dobbs is a liberal one step removed from a neo-con.

There are similarities between us all. We aren't the polar opposites we sometimes come to believe we are. Everything, from politicals to beliefs to orientation, always has shades of grey.

Steve,

Like most people, I have my issues where I'm somewhat liberal, issues in which I'm moderate, and those in which I'm conservative. I spelled some of that out in my post and in subsequent comments.

However, I identify most strongly with the Republican Party. Fundamentally, I don't trust government, and the Republican Party is much better on this issue than the DNC. I believe one of the core jobs of the federal government is to provide for national defense, and that we should aggressively pursue terrorists across the globe. The GOP, of course, is very strong on this issue.

I believe in less taxation and less government spending. Unfortunately, my party has only gotten one of these right in the past couple of decades.

I wholeheartedly support President Bush's concept of building a "culture of life." Human life is precious and we need to remind ourselves that the VALUE of human life should supercede the concept of "quality of life." There are many grey areas on this issue, but overall, just like the President, I believe in erring on the side of life.

On the liberal side, I'm a massive tree hugger. I'm completely against eco-terrorist idiots, but Clinton never signed a bill related to conservation that I didn't like. Republicans have not done too badly in this area, but they could do better.

Then, of course, there are all the comments I've made above. This comment is already too long, so I'll stop here.

Thanks,

David

oh David..how could someone that seems so reasonable be so (no offense meant) delusional..

let's take a look for a second here..

David sez..
*I don't trust government, and the Republican Party is much better on this issue than the DNC.*
the first half of your statement i can agree with for the most part...however i do believe that in many areas gov't regulation is al that stands between the Public Interest and the Robber Barons...that the Rep's are better at this..well in the last 5 years they have grown the gov't ar a record rate, after Al Gore reduced it by 40% in 8 years...i realize conditions have changed...but still..from record surplus to record defecit in 5 years?

who is better at keeping the fed small?

David sez..
*I believe in less taxation and less government spending. Unfortunately, my party has only gotten one of these right in the past couple of decades.*
we have complete agreement...tax cuts and runaway spending...why can't the Rep. elite balance a checkbook?

David sez..
*There are many grey areas on this issue, but overall, just like the President, I believe in erring on the side of life.*
please David...put the kool-aid down..or didn't you see the 5 month old that was unplugged in texas during the whole Schiaveo affair?..done under a bill signed by then Governor Bush in which a panel of the hospitals doctor's and the patient's "ABILITY TO PAY" determine who gets life support...

look it up yourself..and don't get me started on the death penalty bit of it..look at his record there, and tell me hwo many he gave a stay while evidence was looked over so he could err on the side of life..

it is this EXACT type of hypocrisy that pisses me off from BOTH sides..it just seems more rampant from the Republocrats in the last few years..

David sez..
*Republicans have not done too badly in this area, but they could do better.*
again..huh?...i would ask that you check out a moderate Republican's view in Governor C.T. Whitman's book.."It's my Party too"...her stint at the EPA and how she was treated when she attempted the MINIMUM work when it came to preserving th Environment might wake you up..we are NOT talking about improving things, just not making them worse...at EVERY step, this Administration has sided with polluters over our air, land and water...matter of public record here..

i mean how much arsenic is acceptable in your water?..how about metric ton's or mercury falling in your rain frmo coal fired plants..that CAN be improved..but are NOT going to be under this Administration's watch..

now..i am not either Repubocrat, nor Demlican..both are so full of shit they could fertilize the sahara and grow soybeans..

put aside the "gang" mentality and OPEN YOUR EYES as well as your Mind..balance the harm versus the good..WTF, where is the good for the average american frmo this Administration in the last 5 years...can anyone show me ONE thing that has worked out for the better since they took over?

you say..well, umm..the tax cuts..

and i answer..ummm...the balloning Deficet..that little Mortage on our nation being held by the fucking Chinese Communist bank

arrRRRRrRRRrrRRrrgGGGggGGggghhh!!!

/aneurysm

Excelsior!

"Everything, from politicals to beliefs to orientation, always has shades of grey."

I agree. And that's what I dislike so much about people like Bill O'Reilly. He sees the issues only in black and white when there is no cut black and white and refuses to even acknowledge the gray areas...there's a lot of gray area on EVERY issue.

Dave I stand corrected about the early years of the Dem Party however I was young then and we did not look on the south as a bunch of Bible BABBLERS ..we looked at them as a bunch of clan wackos and we looked at the D party as strong for labor..I was a hawk then and believed in the domino theory and was ready and willing to fight anyone..and I served in Korea but I have changed my mind about war ever since the Government lied about Viatnam and Iraq..
The right wing fanatics might be a minority in your party but they CONTROL your party and if you won't admit it which I'm sure you won't then just show me who can get the nomination to run for President with out going to the RR and kiss their ass. who kisses their ass the most..Bush ,Santorum , DeLay to name a few..

David Flanagan's original post was disingenuous at best, and actually quite snide in practice, rather like his right wing extremist background - and, Dave, if you're reading this, you are pretty extreme, if not massively so.

If you do actually believe what you claim to be believe, how do you actually remain a member of the republican party? None of the things you espouse will EVER come to pass under a rp government, at least not in our lifetimes!

It also occurs to me that this love of "debate" that you seem to like so much is part of the problem. If people are continually being sucked into endless debate over the fine print, the details become the context, but the real larger issues are ignored. It seems to be a standard right wing technique these days and is most clearly defined in the expression "can't see the wood for the trees".

Incidentally, books about right wing extremism far outnumber their left-handed counterparts. Here's a bunch of other books you could have hung your hat on, albeit a tad less contemorary:-

1. The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790-1970
by Seymour Martin Lipset.

2. Social stratification and "right-wing extremism" (Reprint / Institute of Industrial Relations)
by Seymour Martin Lipset

3. The Revival of Right Wing Extremism in the 90s (Cass Series on Political Violence)
by Peter Merkl (Editor)

4. Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century (Cass Series on Political Violence, 4)

5. The Faces of Right Wing Extremism
by Kathy Marks, Branden Pub Co

6. Right Wing Extremism
by Paul Hainsworth

7. Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA
by George Michael (presumably not the English singer...)

I personally believe that there has been a vast right wing conspiracy in place since the 1960s, one that is determined to try and roll back all the modern thinking that surged to the fore back in the day. Anybody got any evidence on that?

Oh yes, on the subject of accuracy, when cross-posting to BC AND your own little fantasy island, you need to correct phrases like "Now, on my blog and here at Blogcritics.org". Sorry for the pedantry.

Finally, in the spirit of getting my retaliation in first, (© Minority Report/George W Bush), I'd just like to restate that I am not a socialist, communist, liberal or any other of these bs labels, so spare me any observations along those lines!

it is this EXACT type of hypocrisy that pisses me off from BOTH sides..it just seems more rampant from the Republocrats in the last few years..

You have a lot of points to answer in your comment gonzo, and I don't have opportunity to answer them all, but this whole thing of Bush having driven us into deficit, THAT is so much BS.

I don't agree with the increased spending we've seen over the past several years, but, we have been at war, just in case you haven't noticed. On the flip side of that, it was George HW Bush who began to reduce government after President Reagan put the final nail in the coffin of that obscure empire we used to know as the Soviet Union.

So, several unique events combined to cause, first, a reduction in government (collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War), then, a massive but unrealistic expansion of the economy during Clinton's second term (the DotCom bubble, which began to implode shortly before Clinton left office), then the decline in the economy (all the DotCom money drying up, plus the revelation that Wall Street firms had not been quite as honest about some of those startups as they should have been and CEOs of companies like Enron and Global Crossing - a company which helped make Terry McAuliffe rich - were cooking their books), then 9/11 (a disaster which resulted in the loss of millions of jobs and billions from the economy), then the war on terror (expanded spending to requip the US and the military to deal with the new threat of global terror).

Yet, gonzo, you ignore all of that and say simply, "it's Bush's fault."

Deep thoughts, eh?

As for the bill that then Governor Bush signed into law in Texas. Why do you have a problem with that? If you supported the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, you should support that bill.

The reason President Bush signed the bill into law is that medical technology has it's limits, and sometimes, as in the case of the six-month-old child, the limits were reached. If I were the child's parent, I probably would have kept my baby alive too until I had no options left, but the child could never have lived beyond the confines of that tube and that is one of those things I hate about this life, when innocent human beings suffer and die this way.

Terry Schiavo's case is similar, but not the same in that all she needed was a feeding tube, which is not the kind of dramatic or expensive life support needed for someone who will never have a working set of lungs.

David

>>ave I stand corrected about the early years of the Dem Party however I was young then and we did not look on the south as a bunch of Bible BABBLERS ..we looked at them as a bunch of clan wackos and we looked at the D party as strong for labor<<

The Klan used the Bible as its main text and its members were white fundamentalists. And those Klan members were Democrats to a man back then, as were the bible-belters. It occurs to me that the more primitive communications of the time may have facilitated this. Union democrats in the north may not really have had much contact with or awareness of the beliefs of their party brothers in the south who were burning crosses while quoting the Bible.

Dave

Dave I appreciate your understanding of the primitive communications we had back then and I would like to add ..If the south turned Republican because they did not like integration of their schools and blacks gaining equality with whites thanks to the Democrats then you have a party with a bunch of haters as I said before ..If this is the big tent that David is talking about then you can have them ..they are a discrace to this country and I would like you to address my comment about the Republicans kissing thier ass..
Alienboy...I like what you said !

Nalle: "...The Klan used the Bible as its main text and its members were white fundamentalists. And those Klan members were Democrats to a man back then, as were the bible-belters."

You forgot to add:

Now they've all migrated to the GOP.

Diversity indeed...

nice try Dave..let's have a look here, shall we?

Dave sez..
*and I don't have opportunity to answer them all, but this whole thing of Bush having driven us into deficit, THAT is so much BS.*

can we agree that the President writes the Budget which is then ratified by the Congress..and that during the last 5 years both were Rep controlled? thus no matter what else..they ARE directly responsible

i will agree that 9/11 hurt the economy and that the burstnig of the dot com bubble was also a factor...

the Shrub's answer?...tax cuts!!

as for both the War in Afghanistan and Iraq...NEITHER one have EVER had their costs entered into the budget...BOTH are funded by seperate bills...more red nik not accounted for in the proper place...just like Enron

oh yes..Terry Macauliffe...toss the pigfucker in jail if he can be foudn to have broken the Law..i will shed no tears over the greedy swine..

so you see..i have looked at and thought about this budget bit more than you seem willing to give me credit for..

and i call it like i see it..the current Administration is COMPLETELY responsible for the fiscal mess, right wrong or indifferent...the Factors involved may be beyond their control , but it is their JOB and RESPONSIBILITY to write the Budget and balance the checkbook...

they failed..instead revenues are decreased by tax cuts and spending is increased...remember that is NOT counting the "wars" in Afghanistan nor Iraq


as to the unplugging of the child in Texas..once again, nice try at spin and distract...

my POINT had been that the same man that advocates a "culture of Life" had signed a Bill into Law wherein doctors and the patients ABILITY TO PAY determined when medical care was withheld...

whether this Law is right or wrong, i make no value Judgement here..i merely point out the rampant HYPOCRISY involved..

so..since turnabout is fair play...try aiming your "deep thoughts" at the ISSUES i raise

to put them simply..

is the President the person Responsible for the Budget...yes or no?

i say ...yes

did he sign a Law in Texas to remove medical treatment OVER THE WISHES of the Family as determined by medical experts and the ABILITY to pay?...yes or no

yes is my Answer

address those and i will, as usual, be more than happy to discuss anything else you would like...

k?...thanx..

Excelsior!

Flanagan in denial: "...but this whole thing of Bush having driven us into deficit, THAT is so much BS."

Sure. Okay.

And America... yer getting sleepy... sleepy...

PS: Where's that "Balanced Budget Amendment the GOP was so thrilled about a few years ago?

Um, wait... LOOK! Over there! I thought I saw Osama Bin-whats-his-name!

Or was it the Social Security Crisis?!

Or maybe Terri Schiavo's Right To Life as a Vegetable?!

...America... yer getting sleepy... sleepy...

And the misdirection continues...only this time with a leftist spin. Don't look at the real problems, look at the war in Iraq, look at Bush and his evil cronies, look at Osama, look at Terri Schiavo. Just don't talk about excessive taxation, social security or the threat of terrorism. We can't handle those.

Dave

Dave: "...And the misdirection continues...only this time with a leftist spin..."

Once again: satire wasted on a room-temperature IQ.

Shark, do you even know the definition of the term 'satire'?

Dave

I like the fact that blog critics has both sides of the leftwing-rightwing on one site (or as I prefer to call it the leftwing-wrongwing debate).

I have tried listening to Air America, and even though I agreed more often with the announcers than I would listening to one of the 3 or 4 local right wing alternatives (you know, the "liberal media" in America?) it just doesn't sound that interesting to hear just one side of an argument.

My only quibble is with this line "Most of the conservatives I know LOVE a good debate." That may be true of the conservatives you know, but it appears that the majority of conservatives across the nation seem to "love a BAD debate" many times, considering the reasoning they swallow on many issues from the Fox News Channel and the other media sources they seem to follow..

At least we can agree that conservatives love some sort of debate, BTP.

Leftists on the other hand, prefer their victims gagged and on their knees.

Dave

Regarding comment 50, haven't heard about Osama from either side in ages. As far as Terri Schiavo, I believe that coverage was a diversionary tactic of the right, not the left, if it was diversionary at all.

Dave Nalle: "...Shark, do you even know the definition of the term 'satire'?"

Dave, do you know the meaning of Fuck you?

Nalle: "...Leftists on the other hand, prefer their victims gagged and on their knees."


Yes, Abu Ghraib was apparently run by rabid "leftists".

Shark, you remain as unsubtle and oblivious as ever, congratulations. It takes talen to never get the joke and always miss the point.

Dave

redux...

take a look up at #48 again...anyone see any repubocrat/"conservative" answer any of my Questions....or attempt to refute any of the Points raised here?

ummm...nope...

just checking..

Excelsior!

I know you like to get responses, gonzo, but #48 really doesn't do anything for me, sorry.

I don't have any problem with most of what you say and think Bush was as right about the baby in texas bill as Delay was wrong on the Schiavo bill.

And it's naive to think the President is entirely at fault for the budget. Only a small portion is discretionary and that part hasn't been increased all that much. It's the legacy of 70 years of entitlements and debt service.

Dave

thanx fer the Thoughts Dave..i am attempting discourse..not so much for you here, but the original Poster that sounded off about liking the Discussion..

Dave sez..
*I don't have any problem with most of what you say and think Bush was as right about the baby in texas bill as Delay was wrong on the Schiavo bill.*

fair enough..consistent with your Positions..I Respect that

Dave sez..
*And it's naive to think the President is entirely at fault for the budget. Only a small portion is discretionary and that part hasn't been increased all that much. It's the legacy of 70 years of entitlements and debt service.*

no Dave..it is NOT naive..the Commander-in-Chief is COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLR for what he does on his "Watch"...where's the buck stop?...

as for the "legacy of 70 years"..bullshit..was the Budget in surplus when he took office?

yes...record surplus actually

so what happened?..i told ya ..the War is not even part of the Budget...where did the fucking surplus go?

that is the one that pisses me off about the so-called.."party of fiscal conservatism" ..own the fuck up to it..they spent it on pork projects and tax cuts..NO ONE ELSE TO BLAMR...the Rep.'s control White House that writes the budget, Senate and Congress...no CHANCE for the Minority to get leverage..

they were handed a record surplus...now in record Deficit...can't blame the war..that is off the table..

own up to it...and deal with it

tax-cut and spend like a sailor on payday

balance the checkbook ...everybody else does...or they go to jail

that simple enough for ya?

Excelsior!

Who "almost" voted for McCain?

Can't you spot a fuckin looney toon when you see one. God.... The man went through hell in Vietnam... and I highly respect him for his sacrifice, pain and suffering... but the man is fucking insane... Period.

Look into his eyes, when someone DARES to question his actions... he's a nutbag, and shouldn't be trusted with a gun or an executive order. PERIOD!


Billary is going to win... and we'll all be worse off for it.

Maybe it's a lesson we really need to learn.

"It's like calling someone out in the old west. You can almost hear the cheesy music playing as you face off with your opponent. The wind stirs up the dust, townsfolk run for cover... Then one person makes their move and the bullets fly. Blam, blam, blam!"

Whaddya mean Cheezy Music? I happen to like those scores.

Big, bold, natural reverberation. Shrill whistling noises

Kinda reminds me of Kerry gettin' butt fucked by the Repub-bile-cans. What an ass bitch he turned out to be...

Will the Dems ever figure out how to put up a solid, no questions asked candidate.... or will they continue to field inept blowhards who are backed by the rich and famous idiots in Hollywood.... Talk about baggage... there's more saddle bags on Dems than on O'donald, Barr and Alley put together...

The Dems can't afford baggage, it's cost them the last 2 elections. When the media starts parading the Moore's, Sharptons, Striesands out there... all with THIER OWN points of view... the common folk start channel surfin'

Oh yeah and the wild man... that bald headed fuck from Arkansas... Carvelle, what a rude bitch he'd make in drag....

I can't stand any of them. They alienate me. They drive me away. They're all disgusting extended gaseous gut bombs.

So you all can blather on about this and that... but where the rubber meets the road is shining, pure, no B.S. validity... with NO BAGGAGE and parasitical special interest groups.

The Dems better start having some honest conversations with some vocal asswipes before the next election. Or start paying the press hush money.

my 2cents

Joey D sez..
*Who "almost" voted for McCain?

Can't you spot a fuckin looney toon when you see one*

that wodl be me...and yep..i still wold have voted for him over Gore..and DEFINATELY over Bush

loony toon you say...

it's a fair cop

but ya gotta be six kinds of crazy to even WANT the job...much less pursue it and win the election...

i was all for him..and the beginning of my dislike for the Shrub started after the south carolina primary bullshit against McCain...

but that is all history....as for Hillary..gods of earth and air, i hope she doesn't even run...

as for "Bite Me" 's comments

i'm there with ya ..the Demlicans have some serious issues...

but '08 is far away...and the big thing to be concerned with will be '06...the mid-terms

if the Dems can't get at least ONE house back...Congress or the Senate...then we are all fucking doomed kiddies...

it is IMPERATIVE to restore "checks and balances" to the System...without it NOTHING will ever be Questioned or investigated...and ANYTHING can be done by a Totalitarian Regime against the people..and they won't even know 90% of it has been done to them cuz Pravda shines no Light...

just ask Stalin

Excelsior!

Doesn't budget surplus/deficit mean what we are/are not paying on the INTEREST to the national debt?

There's no way we can be, or ever had paid on the principle. I think you mean the interest...

Daddy taught me that ANY politician who said they could pay of the debt in XXX amount years.... was a liar.

The rule of interest, mathematically wouldn't allow for it.

correct Demi..what was meant by "surplus" was that we were making MORE than the minimum payments..and thus actually paying on the Principle

now we are borrowing more to pay the Interest

imagine how long yoru household budget would last like that...get another credit card to pay the interest on yoru other cards, mortgage etc...

and instead of dealing with it and living by a budget to get yoruself out of it...you buy a new Humvee!! (pork projects) and work less hours and thereby cut down your paycheck(ie:tax cuts)

that's fiscal responsibility, eh?

and like i said..can't blame the "war" because it's NOT EVEV IN THE BUDGET

this Administration's book keeping makes Anderson Accounting and Enron look almsot honest by comparison...

Excelsior!

"he President writes the Budget which is then ratified by the Congress"

Nope. The Prez offers his ideas for a budget, and the Congress does whatever the hell it wants to...

"the Shrub's answer?...tax cuts!!"

If you ask non-partisan economists, the tax cuts, while flawed (like increasing the budget deficit), DID prevent the economy Bush inherited from Clinton from going into a complete tailspin.

"as for both the War in Afghanistan and Iraq...NEITHER one have EVER had their costs entered into the budget..."

Uh, but after the fact they are most certainly counted and included in the total fiscal year federal gov't expenditures, and therefore they are a big factor in the budget deficits over the last few years...

"Where's that "Balanced Budget Amendment the GOP was so thrilled about a few years ago?"

I was defeated largely by Democrats...

Ironic, dontcha think? :)

oh RJ...

#67 - ummm..like i said..who WRITES it?..i go on to say it needs to be ratified by congress...now..in the last 5 years it was written as a defecit..and the Congress..republocrat controlled..made it worse.....spin how ya like..matter of public record...silly lil boy

#68 - sorry..the only economists that would even couch the loaded statement ya made in th elanguage ya chose are "supply side" types..who are all republocrats by definition and inclination..show me a non-partisan study that sez that..and we will talk..

while i may agree that some cutting of taxes does help to stimulate the short term economy..i refute the claim that the ones as implemented helped...either way..the Question is..did the Defecit go up or down?

answer: down..wiggle and spin all ya like..the numbers don't lie

#69 - OF COURSE they show in expeditures..but it has NOTHING to d with the DEFECIT of that years budget except to show that it was NOT in last years...geeez...can you say shell game??

again..nice try at spin..but no dice..the Facts are as i stated and the nubers do not lie...Defecit grows again...both White House and Congress Republican controlled...THEIR FAULT

#70 - yer too funny RJ...and in the last 5 years the balanced budget amendment has been spoken of in either the House or Senate or White house how many times?

zero

times brought up to the floor for a Vote in either House or Senate....

zero

and who controls both Houses and sets the Agenda?

Republicans

soOOOoOOOOoOOOooo whose fault is it that an Issue they deemed so Important , one which showed they were true "fiscal conservatives" and helped them to power in 94 as well as kept them in control of congress since then?

say it with me again kiddies...

Republicans

nice try at the spin..but Facts will tell this Story...

thank you for Playing...Johnny what's his prize?..and don't forget our home version of the Game...

Excelsior!

>>Can't you spot a fuckin looney toon when you see one. God.... The man went through hell in Vietnam... and I highly respect him for his sacrifice, pain and suffering... but the man is fucking insane... Period.<<

So was Teddy Roosevelt and for that matter Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't just a bit off like Roosevelt and McCain, Lincoln was clinically insane by modern standards. They were still two of our all time best presidents.

Dave

"So was Teddy Roosevelt and for that matter Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wasn't just a bit off like Roosevelt and McCain, Lincoln was clinically insane by modern standards. They were still two of our all time best presidents" --Dave Nalle

Fair enough. However, Teddy and Abe didn't have the "bomb."

If so... the south would still be uninhabitable and Cuber would have been turned to glass. JD

"show me a non-partisan study that sez that..and we will talk.."

Ever hear of Alan Greenspan?

Oh, wait, he's a GOP hack...

"who WRITES it?.."

The Congress.

Re-read your Constitution...

Gee, maybe if Dems have been supportive of the Balanced Budget Amendment in the 1990s, we'd have, oh, I dunno, a BALANCED BUDGET???

Of course, it would have neccesarily involved budget cuts, which would have infuriated socialist Democrats. Which is exactly why they did not support it...

RJ..the 1999 budget was balanced as submitted by the White House..in fact..there was a surplus, which was applied to the Principle on th eNational Debt..

nice try...

now..has ANY Budget since then been ANYTHING other than in Deficit?

nope...

you keep proving that you are a living, breathing example of why there needs to be more implementation of the V chip...

your parental units should not let you8 watch Fox News until you at least are old enough to grow some pubic hair instead of drawing them on with eyebrow pencil...

kidding bro ( but you do look young in that pic!)

now..stop trying ta spin yer Uncle Gonzo or i will taunt you a second time..

{8^P~~~~~~~~~

Excelsior!

I can't wait until December 21, 2012... then we will live in total harmonic balance with the universe, and love will abound with the shifting of the magnetic poles and concurrence with the Mayan projection of the 5th dimension...

when the moon is in the 7th house and jupiter aligns with Mars, then peace will reign the planet and love will fill the air... this is the dawning of the age of aqueeryass the age of aqueeryass... A-QUEERY-ASSS (ad infinitum, ad nauseum)...

Aw shit... I forgot my point!

Peacelovewoodstock...put the bong down and step away slowly...seek help cause ya obvioulsly can;t handle yer substances

let the professionals deal with disarming that thing...

nice try on sarcasm boychick..it even bordered on the humorous for almost half a second there..

while thinking you were a Wit you have proven yourself half right..

thanx for playing..please try again..

Excelsior!

If I remember correctly, that is the date the ancient Mayans projected the end of the world. There was some show on TLC or Discovery last night about Revelations and how different religions perceive an end to the world. I just saw that last night, otherwise I wouldn't have recognized the date.

Ms. Snatcher would like to see a ban on the practice of homosexualality and to see faggot's and dyke's stripped of their parental rights.

Gays don't need to get married you sinner motherfuckers. Hopefully the next Pope will rid the Catholic Church of you faggot assed child molesting young child loving perveret reprobates. Damnit!

Al Gore didn't invent the fucking internet either. Maybe the butt plug!

Would bcb be a human butt plug if the Jolly Green Giant was gay?

How the hell do you think he got jolly?

fixed?

Comment 82 posted by Margret Snatcher on April 9, 2005 11:07 AM:
Al Gore didn't invent the fucking internet either. Maybe the butt plug!

Would bcb be a human butt plug if the Jolly Green Giant was gay?



Comment 83 posted by Steve S on April 9, 2005 11:34 AM:
How the hell do you think he got jolly?

Me: ROTFL!