[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I publicly renounce my support of this coward effective immediately. He is a phony. He came in as a conservative but is nothing of the sort. He is a Lib. I also denounce the Republican D0-NOTHING Congress — no term limits, increased spending and waste, no social security reform,…
They had every chance in the world to put this country back on the right track. They ALL chose to go after a psychopath dictator instead, and couldn’t even do that correctly.
I say we take a giant fucking bulldozer and push the whole rotten pile into the Potomac!!
Headhunter[/quote]
Yes, you are right. The worst thing is that the republicans behaved like democrats. So now that the incompetent republicans have been fired we can look forward to turning Iraq over the insurgency, guaranteeing we will be there once again. This time we will be removing a radical islamic government who has likely forged a pact with Iran this time. We can look forward to amnesty for illegals with no consequence and not plans to stop the invasion. We can look forward to and increase in social welfare and other programs designed to create dependence on the state. We can look forward to state funded abortions and birth control. we can look forward to being attacked by islamic facists but we will no longer do anything about it. We’ll just take it.
So yes, shame on the republicans for failing us so miserably. This is what we have to endure. I am glad I am a minority; you WASP’s are fucked. At least when my hand is out something will go in it. You honkey’s will have an empty cup as you stand in line at the soup kitchen.
Conservatives just use issues like Small Government and spending caps as a campaign gimmick. When they can actually control the flow of taxpayer dollars, they’ll spend like crazy. They’re just big talkers, but when it comes to following through, they don’t deliver.
[/quote]
That is a total bullshit statement. Conservatives dont use small government and spending caps as a gimmick, they believe in it totally. If they wander away from that, they are no longer a conservative…hence the term neo-con.
But, as I pointed out above, you dont know anything about conservatism.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
That is a total bullshit statement. Conservatives dont use small government and spending caps as a gimmick, they believe in it totally. If they wander away from that, they are no longer a conservative…hence the term neo-con.
[/quote]
So then there are NO conservatives in the federal government? Is that what you’re saying?
Who are the Republicans who voted against raising the caps on the federal deficit? Can you name anyone at all? Which Republicans voted against the bloated federal budgets (that the GOP authored)?
Discretionary spending over the past 6 years has been higher than at any time since LBJ was president (The Great Society).
The GOP controlled all three branches of government for the past 6 years, they chaired all the committees and could have done almost anything they wanted, with the budget. Who twisted their arms and made them spend all that money? It wasn’t Democrats, the Dems controlled nothing, and they got stiffed on pork projects.
Name some of the ‘real’ conservatives in the federal government who held the line on spending… there’s nobody!!! So are you claiming they’re ALL “neo-cons”? Or maybe ‘pure conservatism’ is strictly a theoretical philosophy, that can’t really exist in a practical situation.
They spent money like liberals. And don’t give me the balanced budget under Clinton crap. Took a republican congress bashing him on the issue, to get him to sign off on it.
The compassionate conservative idiocy has to go. Growing entitlements is not conservative. Starting up new programs is not conservative.
Ever since Newt left, republicans lost their spine for reigning in these parasitic entitlement programs. Where’s the cuts? Where?
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Or maybe ‘pure conservatism’ is strictly a theoretical philosophy, that can’t really exist in a practical situation.[/quote]
No, fiscal conservatism is a pratical situation. Bloated, slow to respond, soon to go bankrupt, entitlement programs are not. The nanny state is not practical.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Based upon the Libs response to my heartfelt anger at the pseudo-conservative lying filth, they are still preferable to you gents. You intrepret honest anger as ‘rats fleeing a ship’. Well, if the captain of the ship lied to you and was a phony, should you STAY on the ship?
It took you 6 fucking years to notice?
I could’ve told you in 2000 that Bush was a moron.
Would we stay on the ship? Hell, we never even boarded that sinking raft in the first place. Don’t be pissed at us because you got played like a stupid tool.
[/quote]
Hahahha. Well done Pookie. My sentiments to a ‘T’.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I get the feeling that some here take our dissapointment in Bush and Republicans as validation of Kerry and the democrats. No.
On the contrary, we want fiscal policy much further right of the current republicans, and especially the democrats.
So, if I was to choose between Bush or Kerry again? Bush. A true fiscal conservative and Bush? The fiscal conservative, everytime.[/quote]
Hmm…Bush or Kerry? Death by hanging or death by fire? What a choice. I still think I would’ve chosen Kerry despite disliking his liberal tendencies. Bush was just so grotesquely unappealing from the very beginning. And even moreso now. Gimme a good centrist any day.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
JD430 wrote:
That is a total bullshit statement. Conservatives dont use small government and spending caps as a gimmick, they believe in it totally. If they wander away from that, they are no longer a conservative…hence the term neo-con.
So then there are NO conservatives in the federal government? Is that what you’re saying?
Who are the Republicans who voted against raising the caps on the federal deficit? Can you name anyone at all? Which Republicans voted against the bloated federal budgets (that the GOP authored)?
Discretionary spending over the past 6 years has been higher than at any time since LBJ was president (The Great Society).
The GOP controlled all three branches of government for the past 6 years, they chaired all the committees and could have done almost anything they wanted, with the budget. Who twisted their arms and made them spend all that money? It wasn’t Democrats, the Dems controlled nothing, and they got stiffed on pork projects.
Name some of the ‘real’ conservatives in the federal government who held the line on spending… there’s nobody!!! So are you claiming they’re ALL “neo-cons”? Or maybe ‘pure conservatism’ is strictly a theoretical philosophy, that can’t really exist in a practical situation.[/quote]
You seem to keep mixing up the terms “Republican” and “Conservative”.
The fact remains that anyone who was involved in allowing discretionary spending to balloon was not acting like a conservative. I’m not arguing that
there were plenty of republicans that
watched a lot of things spiral out of control in the past 6 years(not just the budget). It should be pretty clear that they followed the party line and were too hesitant to break with the president. How any of that proves that conservatism is no longer a viable philosophy or “it can only exist in a vacuum” is beyond any logic. In fact, it is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. The two party system
has devolved to the point where each side continually tries to wrest and then maintain power. Damn any real beliefs or principles.
Here is a good article on conservatism and the Bush administrations break with conservative principles, if you are interested in looking outside of your own bias:
On the contrary, we want fiscal policy much further right of the current republicans, and especially the democrats.
[/quote]
True, but not just fiscal policy. When you talk about things like illegal immigration and welfare reform, we want social policy much farther to the right too.
On the contrary, we want fiscal policy much further right of the current republicans, and especially the democrats.
True, but not just fiscal policy. When you talk about things like illegal immigration and welfare reform, we want social policy much farther to the right too.
[/quote]
Well, I’m speaking from a more Libertarian position.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I get the feeling that some here take our dissapointment in Bush and Republicans as validation of Kerry and the democrats. No.
On the contrary, we want fiscal policy much further right of the current republicans, and especially the democrats.
So, if I was to choose between Bush or Kerry again? Bush. A true fiscal conservative and Bush? The fiscal conservative, everytime.[/quote]
Well stated. If you like fiscal conservatism - or at a bare mininum, just plain old frugality - outside of a vote for a possible gridlock, how could you be exicted about the Democrats?
Republicans became right-wing redistributionists, no different than the Democrats’ playbook, except for where the government largesse got sent.
[quote]JD430 wrote:
You seem to keep mixing up the terms “Republican” and “Conservative”. [/quote]
As opposed to someone using “Liberal” and “Democrat” interchangeably?
It was the so called “good guys” on this board who created the Conservative=Republican and Liberal=Democrat definitions. And yes, being “Conservative” means that Bush is right and you must do as he says, or you’re a traitor and hate freedom. Jeffro said so.
[quote]tme wrote:
JD430 wrote:
You seem to keep mixing up the terms “Republican” and “Conservative”.
As opposed to someone using “Liberal” and “Democrat” interchangeably?
[/quote]
You are right. Apparently, a good number of the freshman Dems elected last week are fairly conservative. I hope they dont get run over by the true liberal bosses of the party(Pelosi, Schumer et al). Immediately, the gun control issue comes to mind as many of the newly elected Democrats are “A” rated by the NRA. It will be telling to see if they stand up to the gun-grabbing buffoons. It would be nice to see a politician stay true to some type of guiding principles and not be strongarmed into behaving the way a Democrat(lib) or Republican(neo-con) boss tells them too.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Based upon the Libs response to my heartfelt anger at the pseudo-conservative lying filth, they are still preferable to you gents. You intrepret honest anger as ‘rats fleeing a ship’. Well, if the captain of the ship lied to you and was a phony, should you STAY on the ship?
It took you 6 fucking years to notice?
I could’ve told you in 2000 that Bush was a moron.
Would we stay on the ship? Hell, we never even boarded that sinking raft in the first place. Don’t be pissed at us because you got played like a stupid tool.
Hahahha. Well done Pookie. My sentiments to a ‘T’.[/quote]
Bullshit. You gents lucked out that Bush crashed and burned. Imagine if some jerkoff like Dean had won. Could I make fun of you then!!! Wow, it’d almost be worth it.
Bush was and is a waste, but the clowns he ran against were worse. I chose accordingly.
Tell you what, ‘gentlemen’: why don’t you describe the wonderful world we’d have if, say, Howard Dean had won? Or maybe E-Gore? Yeah, the terrorists would surely love us, 9-11 would never have happened and love would blanket the world. Horse-fucking-shit.
Its easy to bitch when my clown fucks up. Just imagine if your worse clowns had run things.
Tell you what, ‘gentlemen’: why don’t you describe the wonderful world we’d have if, say, Howard Dean had won? Or maybe E-Gore? Yeah, the terrorists would surely love us, 9-11 would never have happened and love would blanket the world. Horse-fucking-shit.
[/quote]
Al Gore did a pretty damn good job describing that “wonderful world” on SNL a while back. I’d take his version of history over the shit we’re stuck with now anyday.
Tell you what, ‘gentlemen’: why don’t you describe the wonderful world we’d have if, say, Howard Dean had won? Or maybe E-Gore? Yeah, the terrorists would surely love us, 9-11 would never have happened and love would blanket the world. Horse-fucking-shit.
Al Gore did a pretty damn good job describing that “wonderful world” on SNL a while back. I’d take his version of history over the shit we’re stuck with now anyday.
Bullshit. You gents lucked out that Bush crashed and burned. Imagine if some jerkoff like Dean had won. Could I make fun of you then!!! Wow, it’d almost be worth it.
[/quote]
Lucked out? You fellas elected a guy who is mildly retarded, and only uses, “The Google” or “The Internets” for looking at pictures of his ranch, cause “cause sometimes I wish I was there”. We didn’t luck out, we called it that this guy was a moron. We were right. Sorry boss.
That’s funny, mostly because you have no idea what they would have done if put in Bush’s situation.
All of you thought that Bush was going to do things that he promised in his campaigns…and he did the exact opposite (remember that “compassionate conservative” routine?).
You picked the wrong guy. Not my fault, but I have every right to say, “I fuckin told you so.”
Like I said, you have no idea what would have happened had Gore been elected, or Kerry for that matter.
Every “point” you’re trying to make is grounded in speculation on the character of men that you don’t know aside from what FOXNEWS told you.
You know what backs me up? The civil war in Iraq, the thousands of dead American troops, the Vietnam-esque way we’re going, the PATRIOT ACT, the wire-tapping…you know, those “fact” things. They’re motherfuckers, aren’t they?
Admit it man, your party fucked up bigtime. And you were wrong.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Tell you what, ‘gentlemen’: why don’t you describe the wonderful world we’d have if, say, Howard Dean had won? Or maybe E-Gore?[/quote]
Yeah, well we can play “what-if” till the cows come home; but for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Gore would’ve continued in Clinton’s vein.
Can you imagine the nightmare of another 8 years of peace, progress and prosperity? A budget surplus? 3000 troops not dead and buried?
As for your terrorist boogeyman, it’s old and dated. Fear mongering works for a time, but eventually people wake up and notice that they’re afraid of the wrong things. But still, look at it this way: After being hit in '93, Clinton managed 7 years without any attacks. Bush, even with the experience of the previous administration available (many staffers involved in security where still there) and with reports entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike US” lasted only nine months before getting hit, big time.
We’ll never know if 9/11 would’ve occurred under Gore; but don’t give me bullshit about Bush making you any safer. If anything, and plenty of reports confirm it, Bush’s action in the Middle East have created more terrorists. Not only that, but his and Rumsfeld mismanagement of the war have shown them how to beat the US. Great fuckin’ plan. Give them a cause; and then lose to them to embolden them.