Why is the Republican party thriving? Because we love a good argument.
David Brooks, an Op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote an interesting article today which he entitled, "A House Divided, and Strong." Here is the gist of the article:…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dave Nalle
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
27 - Georgio
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..
28 - David Flanagan
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
29 - David Flanagan
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
30 - Steve S
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.
31 - Steve S
ugh, sorry forgot to end italics.
32 - Temple Stark
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. :-)
33 - Georgio
Leiberman..no wonder Gore lost !
34 - Dave Nalle
>>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
35 - Dave Nalle
>>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
36 - Georgio
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.
37 - Dave Nalle
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
38 - Steve S
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.
39 - David Flanagan
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
40 - gonzo marx
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!
41 - Scott
"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.
42 - Georgio
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..
43 - alienboy
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!
44 - David Flanagan
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
45 - Dave Nalle
>>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
46 - Georgio
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 !
47 - Shark
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...
48 - gonzo marx
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!
49 - Shark
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...
50 - Dave Nalle
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
51 - Shark
Dave: "...And the misdirection continues...only this time with a leftist spin..."
Once again: satire wasted on a room-temperature IQ.
52 - Dave Nalle
Shark, do you even know the definition of the term 'satire'?
Dave
53 - Big Time Patriot
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..
54 - Dave Nalle
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
55 - Steve S
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.
56 - Shark
Dave Nalle: "...Shark, do you even know the definition of the term 'satire'?"
Dave, do you know the meaning of Fuck you?
57 - Shark
Nalle: "...Leftists on the other hand, prefer their victims gagged and on their knees."
Yes, Abu Ghraib was apparently run by rabid "leftists".
58 - Dave Nalle
Shark, you remain as unsubtle and oblivious as ever, congratulations. It takes talen to never get the joke and always miss the point.
Dave
59 - gonzo marx
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!
60 - Dave Nalle
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
61 - gonzo marx
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!
62 - Joey D
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.
63 - Bite Me
"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
64 - gonzo marx
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!
65 - Demi
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.
66 - gonzo marx
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!
67 - RJ
"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...
68 - RJ
"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.
69 - RJ
"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...
70 - RJ
"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? :)
71 - gonzo marx
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!
72 - Dave Nalle
>>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
73 - Joey D.
"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
74 - RJ
"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...
75 - RJ
"who WRITES it?.."
The Congress.
Re-read your Constitution...