The conservatives all shouted in unison that Obama's promise to talk to Iran directly with no preconceptions was a show of weakness... Now the horse speaks... "US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency. "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
The conservatives all shouted in unison that Obama's promise to talk to Iran directly with no preconceptions was a show of weakness... Now the horse speaks... "US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency. "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
Tell us more, oh wise and all knowing Fishermage! Maybe you should be running for office? On 2nd thought, maybe not, your only skill seems to involve calling everyone a socialist.
"People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against."
orrrrrr..... if there were less people in the world who considered it a big game of "us vs them", we might make some progress one of these days....
And it was Bush that had, if not the worst then close to it, approval rating in the history of all US presidents. If the Democratically-controlled Congress was so bad, then why do we now have a US majority Congress, House, AND President? Oh... that's right... because the PEOPLE voted them in. Hmm... the people must have not hated them that much then. Ooooh... so, you know that you were "right about Obama and his lacking character" just from three weeks of him being in office. Give me a frackin' break! Again, you're spewing forth pointless BS..
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950 Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
President---------HighestRating/Lowest Rating
Harry Truman ..... 87%/ 23%
Dwight Eisenhower ..... 79%/ 48%
John F. Kennedy ..... 83%/ 56%
Lyndon Johnson ..... 79%/ 35%
Richard Nixon ..... 67%/ 24%
Gerald Ford ..... 71%/ 37%
Jimmy Carter ..... 75%/ 28%
Ronald Reagan ..... 68%/ 35%
George H.W. Bush ..... 89%/ 29%
Bill Clinton ..... 73%/ 37%
George W. Bush ..... 90%/ 29%
Source: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine
BOTH Bushes beat Carter by only ONE percentage point, lawl! (And you know what Conservatives think of Jimmy Carter). Like father, like son. What rhymes with "boozers"?
And another:
Reuters (1/19/09) Headline: President Bush Leaves Office with Lowest Final Rating Compared to All Previous Presidents Over Last 40 Years
ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(Business Wire)-- As he prepares to leave office, the latest TheHarris Poll finds that President George W. Bush will leave the White House with a positive rating of 28% and a negative rating of 71%. This is slightly up from right before the election when 24% of Americans gave him a positive rating and 75% gave him a negative rating. This is according to some of the findings of a new Harris Poll of 1,019 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone between January 7 and 11, 2009 by Harris Interactive®:
As the rankings below shows, President Bush is leaving office with the lowest positive rating when compared to where 7 other presidents when they left office, starting with Lyndon Johnson in 1969, the first president that the Harris Poll tracked. Even Richard Nixon, who resigned in the wake of impeachment proceedings and Watergate, left office with a rating of 29% positive and 68% negative. At the opposite end of the spectrum, President Bush`s predecessor, Bill Clinton left office with a 65% positive rating, the highest among the eight most recent presidents.
Last Ratings Presidents Left Office------------ Positive/ Negative Bush 2009....... % 28/ 71 Clinton 2001 ....... % 65/ 34 Bush 1993 ....... % 45/ 53 Reagan 1989 ....... % 58/ 41 Carter 1981 ....... % 42/ 58 Ford 1977 ........ % 49/ 49 Nixon 1974 ....... % 29/ 68 Johnson 1969 ........ % 53/ n/a
In comparison to the President George H.W. Bush, the father bests the son with a 45% positive rating as he left office. After Clinton, Ronald Reagan has the next highest positive rating at 58%. The only other president to leave office with majority positive rating is Lyndon B. Johnson at 53%
So What?
The history books will, over the course of the coming months, years and decades, determine what George Bush`s legacy will be. At the moment, the American public has decided what they think his legacy will be, and it is not good. He leaves office with a lower final rating than a president who resigned in disgrace. The myriad reasons for Americans` dissatisfaction with this outgoing president are well-known, but as he leaves with unemployment at the highest level in decades and businesses needing government help, that is the issue that is probably defining his final year in office. Hurricane Katrina, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, water boarding, and the world`s low opinion are also part of the legacy. Whether this legacy will change, only time will tell.
And it was Bush that had, if not the worst then close to it, approval rating in the history of all US presidents. If the Democratically-controlled Congress was so bad, then why do we now have a US majority Congress, House, AND President? Oh... that's right... because the PEOPLE voted them in. Hmm... the people must have not hated them that much then.
Ooooh... so, you know that you were "right about Obama and his lacking character" just from three weeks of him being in office. Give me a frackin' break! Again, you're spewing forth pointless BS..
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
President---------HighestRating/Lowest Rating
Harry Truman ..... 87%/ 23%
Dwight Eisenhower ..... 79%/ 48%
John F. Kennedy ..... 83%/ 56%
Lyndon Johnson ..... 79%/ 35%
Richard Nixon ..... 67%/ 24%
Gerald Ford ..... 71%/ 37%
Jimmy Carter ..... 75%/ 28%
Ronald Reagan ..... 68%/ 35%
George H.W. Bush ..... 89%/ 29%
Bill Clinton ..... 73%/ 37%
George W. Bush ..... 90%/ 29%
Source: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine
BOTH Bushes beat Carter by only ONE percentage point, lawl! (And you know what Conservatives think of Jimmy Carter). Like father, like son. What rhymes with "boozers"?
And another:
Reuters (1/19/09) Headline: President Bush Leaves Office with Lowest Final Rating Compared to All Previous Presidents Over Last 40 Years
ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(Business Wire)--
As he prepares to leave office, the latest TheHarris Poll finds that President
George W. Bush will leave the White House with a positive rating of 28% and a
negative rating of 71%. This is slightly up from right before the election when
24% of Americans gave him a positive rating and 75% gave him a negative rating.
This is according to some of the findings of a new Harris Poll of 1,019 U.S.
adults surveyed by telephone between January 7 and 11, 2009 by Harris
Interactive®:
As the rankings below shows, President Bush is leaving office with the lowest
positive rating when compared to where 7 other presidents when they left office,
starting with Lyndon Johnson in 1969, the first president that the Harris Poll
tracked. Even Richard Nixon, who resigned in the wake of impeachment proceedings
and Watergate, left office with a rating of 29% positive and 68% negative. At
the opposite end of the spectrum, President Bush`s predecessor, Bill Clinton
left office with a 65% positive rating, the highest among the eight most recent
presidents.
Last Ratings
Presidents Left Office------------ Positive/ Negative
Bush 2009....... % 28/ 71
Clinton 2001 ....... % 65/ 34
Bush 1993 ....... % 45/ 53
Reagan 1989 ....... % 58/ 41
Carter 1981 ....... % 42/ 58
Ford 1977 ........ % 49/ 49
Nixon 1974 ....... % 29/ 68
Johnson 1969 ........ % 53/ n/a
In comparison to the President George H.W. Bush, the father bests the son with a
45% positive rating as he left office. After Clinton, Ronald Reagan has the next
highest positive rating at 58%. The only other president to leave office with
majority positive rating is Lyndon B. Johnson at 53%
So What?
The history books will, over the course of the coming months, years and decades,
determine what George Bush`s legacy will be. At the moment, the American public
has decided what they think his legacy will be, and it is not good. He leaves
office with a lower final rating than a president who resigned in disgrace. The
myriad reasons for Americans` dissatisfaction with this outgoing president are
well-known, but as he leaves with unemployment at the highest level in decades
and businesses needing government help, that is the issue that is probably
defining his final year in office. Hurricane Katrina, the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Guantanamo, water boarding, and the world`s low opinion are also
part of the legacy. Whether this legacy will change, only time will tell.
Bush. Bad for the economy. Good for comedy.
Can't wait for Palin's slogan.
So in other words, Bush was our most popular president since 1950, at least according to the first set of figures. Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats.
Now, personally, I see the growing trend of socialism in both parties is the problem, and it has little to do with party affiliation, but if you wanna play the blame game the way you are trying to play it -- it's the democrats' fault the economy is where it is.
The conservatives all shouted in unison that Obama's promise to talk to Iran directly with no preconceptions was a show of weakness... Now the horse speaks... "US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency. "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
Tell us more, oh wise and all knowing Fishermage! Maybe you should be running for office? On 2nd thought, maybe not, your only skill seems to involve calling everyone a socialist.
"People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against."
orrrrrr..... if there were less people in the world who considered it a big game of "us vs them", we might make some progress one of these days....
I've never called Walter Williams a socialist.. I've never called Fred Thompson a socialist. Never called Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, PJ O'Roark, Jacob Sollum, Justin Raimundo, Dick Army, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, or John Voight socialists. There are billions of people I have not called socialist. I only call people who either advocate or vote for socialism socialists. Also, they usually have to do so for awhile, and repeatedly, and have some kind of record of socialism before I go there.
It's not a game, it's a very serious business. It's not "us vs. them," It's "them vs. us" and they have been saying so for a very long time.
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
*clap clap clap* you totally called out my joke!
Aren't you precious!? Bet that made your day too. You were probably watching the thread, hoping to jump back in after your previous statements were stomped back into the crap they came from.
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
*clap clap clap* you totally called out my joke!
Aren't you precious!? Bet that made your day too. You were probably watching the thread, hoping to jump back in after your previous statements were stomped back into the crap they came from.
If it was a joke, my bad... but I don't consider pushing lies a laughing matter.
So in other words, Bush was our most popular president since 1950, at least according to the first set of figures. Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats.
From a conservative website, WorldNetDaily, article 8/03/06:
WASHINGTON Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party. In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.
Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.
Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.
"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?" Richard Viguerie
Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.
"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
The numbers?
Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once for a non-spending issue in his second term.
"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."
Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.
"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
I hope you can read carefully, because there is NO spin in this that even O'Reilly couldn't glean. That's a REAL conservative who Reagan trusted.
And for the record, when your guy is LESS popular with the American people than a guy who had to leave office early because he was about to get IMPEACHED due to criminal actions violating the U.S. Constitution, that's nothing to break out little party hats and funny noisemakers about. His "popularity" came from lies to them to get elected. And it's a disgrace.
Bush. So bad for the economy, even Reagan conservatives think he's a liberal.
So in other words, Bush was our most popular president since 1950, at least according to the first set of figures. Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats.
From a conservative website, WorldNetDaily, article 8/03/06:
WASHINGTON – Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party.
In "Conservatives Betrayed," Richard Viguerie, credited with being one of the architects of the Reagan Revolution, says George W. Bush has set the stage for the punishment of his party by voters.
Viguerie compares spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years vs. the Bush years. In Clinton's first term, federal expenditures rose 4.7 percent. In his second term, they rose 3.7 percent. In the first term of the Bush administration, however, spending rose 19.2 percent.
"If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
No matter how you slice it, Viguerie says, Bush makes Clinton look like a spending piker by comparison. For instance, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York keeps records that show how much the federal government spends on average each year for each person in the country. When this standard of measurement is used, the comparison between the two administrations is even more pronounced.
Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent.
"During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
Richard Viguerie
Another standard of comparison offered by Viguerie is discretionary domestic spending, adjusted for inflation.
"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
The numbers?
Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
Viguerie compares the modern presidents on the use of the veto, too. While Johnson used the veto power 30 times, Nixon 43, Ford 66, Carter 31, Reagan 78, Bush I 44 and Clinton 36, Bush didn't use it at all in his first term and has used it just once – for a non-spending issue – in his second term.
"Bush apologists give the excuse that it's harder to veto bills that are passed by your own party," Viguerie writes. "Yet LBJ and Carter each cast 30 or more vetoes while their own party controlled Congress. In fact, the all-time master of the veto was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He used the veto power an incredible 636 times during his four terms – despite having a Democratic Congress with majorities as lopsided as 75-17 in the Senate and 333-89 in the House! Congress overrode his vetoes a mere nine times."
Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending.
"The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
I hope you can read carefully, because there is NO spin in this that even O'Reilly couldn't glean. That's a REAL conservative who Reagan trusted.
And for the record, when your guy is LESS popular with the American people than a guy who had to leave office early because he was about to get IMPEACHED due to criminal actions violating the U.S. Constitution, that's nothing to break out little party hats and funny noisemakers about. His "popularity" came from lies to them to get elected. And it's a disgrace.
Bush. So bad for the economy, even Reagan conservatives think he's a liberal.
My guy? I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush supporter. I consider Bush to be way too far to the left for my tastes, at least on the economy.
Are you actually reading anything I am writing? You are attacking a straw man, not anything I have said or implied. I was following YOUR reasoning, not mine, and simply flipping it on you. I was trying to show how your entire line of thought is specious. Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that for you.
"Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats."
Originally posted by Fishermage
My guy? I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush supporter. I consider Bush to be way too far to the left for my tastes, at least on the economy. Are you actually reading anything I am writing? You are attacking a straw man, not anything I have said or implied. I was following YOUR reasoning, not mine, and simply flipping it on you. I was trying to show how your entire line of thought is specious. Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that for you.
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
"Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats."
Originally posted by Fishermage
My guy? I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush supporter. I consider Bush to be way too far to the left for my tastes, at least on the economy.
Are you actually reading anything I am writing? You are attacking a straw man, not anything I have said or implied. I was following YOUR reasoning, not mine, and simply flipping it on you. I was trying to show how your entire line of thought is specious. Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that for you.
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
You're still posting things that have nothing to do with anything I am posting, presumably in response to my posts. Interesting in a certain sense, but not worthy of much comment.
"Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats."
Originally posted by Fishermage
My guy? I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush supporter. I consider Bush to be way too far to the left for my tastes, at least on the economy.
Are you actually reading anything I am writing? You are attacking a straw man, not anything I have said or implied. I was following YOUR reasoning, not mine, and simply flipping it on you. I was trying to show how your entire line of thought is specious. Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that for you.
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
Your still posting things that have nothing to do with anything I am posting, presumably in response to my posts. Interesting in a certain sense, but not worthy of much comment.
I will translate this for whomever else is reading:
I, Fishermage, cannot argue with the facts that you have researched and presented before me. This is due to the fact that, unlike you, I do not have any actual facts or data to support my statements.
You're still posting things that have nothing to do with anything I am posting, presumably in response to my posts. Interesting in a certain sense, but not worthy of much comment.
Strawman, huh? I don't know about that one.
I'd say the way you've been posting in this thread is like a strawman alright.
To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
Originally posted by Fishermage To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people. This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all. Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either. Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general. I hope this time I was clear enough.
To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence.
Just telling it like it is.........
I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?
To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence.
Just telling it like it is.........
I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?
What problem do you have with what I wrote?
My views are conventional FOR A LIBERTARIAN. That doesn't mean my views would be conventional to a liberal or to a conservative -- but to a moderate, socially liberal and fiscally conservative is VERY conventional.
In fact, there are two kinds of people in the "middle," authoritarians and libertarians. I agree there are probably more authoritarians than libertarians, but neither is particularly unconventional.
Military spending? That would depend on the libertarian. In my view, we are right now in the opening stages of the biggest, most threatening war in our history -- the defensive war we are fighting against the Jihad is far, far worse than WWI, WWII, or the cold war, so it stands to reason that "defense spending" should be increasing dramatically, as it does during all world level conflicts. That's just the price you pay for freedom.
In fact, the military should be by far the biggest part of the federal government. The military, the courts, and the buildings that house the government should be the total package.
Comments
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
Tell us more, oh wise and all knowing Fishermage! Maybe you should be running for office? On 2nd thought, maybe not, your only skill seems to involve calling everyone a socialist.
"People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against."
orrrrrr..... if there were less people in the world who considered it a big game of "us vs them", we might make some progress one of these days....
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
President---------HighestRating/Lowest Rating
Source: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine
BOTH Bushes beat Carter by only ONE percentage point, lawl! (And you know what Conservatives think of Jimmy Carter). Like father, like son. What rhymes with "boozers"?
And another:
Bush. Bad for the economy. Good for comedy.
Can't wait for Palin's slogan.
"TO MICHAEL!"
"Sarah Palin ... new and improved, she can find Africa on a map now"
Presidential Approval Ratings, Since 1950
Below are the highest and lowest approval ratings ever received by a president in a national opinion poll throughout his presidency.
President---------HighestRating/Lowest Rating
Source: Can West News Service; CNN; "The Ups and Downs of Presidential Popularity," Ron Faucheux, Campaigns and Elections magazine
BOTH Bushes beat Carter by only ONE percentage point, lawl! (And you know what Conservatives think of Jimmy Carter). Like father, like son. What rhymes with "boozers"?
And another:
Bush. Bad for the economy. Good for comedy.
Can't wait for Palin's slogan.
So in other words, Bush was our most popular president since 1950, at least according to the first set of figures. Wow, I didn't know that. Actually, it seems Bush was GOOD for the economy. The economy didn't start to go downhill until the democrats got into office. So, if the party in power is to blame for the economy, it was the Democrats.
Now, personally, I see the growing trend of socialism in both parties is the problem, and it has little to do with party affiliation, but if you wanna play the blame game the way you are trying to play it -- it's the democrats' fault the economy is where it is.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." Truer words have never been spoken.
Thats why we voted the republicans out of office.
There are people in both counties who favor diplomacy.
National policy isn't based cultural norms. It's made by business and politics and it's made out of opportunity and necessity. By abandoning discourse you insure conflict and become the very thing you blame your enemy of being.
Alfred said it best: "...some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."
WE never abandoned discourse. The enemy never even considered it. People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against.
People voted Republicans out of office because Republican liberalism failed the same as Democrat liberalism has failed, and will fail again. Big government socialism breeds corruption and failure no matter which party practices it. It then leads to the people voting them out, to be replaced by liars on the other side who give us more socialism and corruption. That's been the pattern since Roosevelt at least.
Few people voted on foreign policy issues this past election. It was the failed economy (ie, the failure of big government liberalism) that led them to foolishly vote for Obama and a Democrat congress.
Tell us more, oh wise and all knowing Fishermage! Maybe you should be running for office? On 2nd thought, maybe not, your only skill seems to involve calling everyone a socialist.
"People in this country (and in the democratic west in general) are too decent, too innocent, too naive, too ignorant, to even understand what we are fighting against."
orrrrrr..... if there were less people in the world who considered it a big game of "us vs them", we might make some progress one of these days....
I've never called Walter Williams a socialist.. I've never called Fred Thompson a socialist. Never called Thomas Sowell, Jonah Goldberg, PJ O'Roark, Jacob Sollum, Justin Raimundo, Dick Army, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, or John Voight socialists. There are billions of people I have not called socialist. I only call people who either advocate or vote for socialism socialists. Also, they usually have to do so for awhile, and repeatedly, and have some kind of record of socialism before I go there.
It's not a game, it's a very serious business. It's not "us vs. them," It's "them vs. us" and they have been saying so for a very long time.
fishermage.blogspot.com
"Sarah Palin ... new and improved, she can find Africa on a map now"
How ignorant you are to repeat a made up story about someone.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/09/the-truth-about-palin-africa-and-nafta/
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
"Sarah Palin ... new and improved, she can find Africa on a map now"
How ignorant you are to repeat a made up story about someone.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/09/the-truth-about-palin-africa-and-nafta/
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
*clap clap clap* you totally called out my joke!
Aren't you precious!? Bet that made your day too. You were probably watching the thread, hoping to jump back in after your previous statements were stomped back into the crap they came from.
"Sarah Palin ... new and improved, she can find Africa on a map now"
How ignorant you are to repeat a made up story about someone.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/11/09/the-truth-about-palin-africa-and-nafta/
edit.. i just couldn't resist this... the libs all point to fox news over the story about palin and Africa, but even fox had to correct itself after the guy that made the lie up came clean. Libs will ONLY accept a fox news link if it's bashing a conservative. but God forbid it if it's the other way around... hypocrites supreme all.
*clap clap clap* you totally called out my joke!
Aren't you precious!? Bet that made your day too. You were probably watching the thread, hoping to jump back in after your previous statements were stomped back into the crap they came from.
If it was a joke, my bad... but I don't consider pushing lies a laughing matter.
From a conservative website, WorldNetDaily, article 8/03/06:
I hope you can read carefully, because there is NO spin in this that even O'Reilly couldn't glean. That's a REAL conservative who Reagan trusted.
And for the record, when your guy is LESS popular with the American people than a guy who had to leave office early because he was about to get IMPEACHED due to criminal actions violating the U.S. Constitution, that's nothing to break out little party hats and funny noisemakers about. His "popularity" came from lies to them to get elected. And it's a disgrace.
Bush. So bad for the economy, even Reagan conservatives think he's a liberal.
"TO MICHAEL!"
From a conservative website, WorldNetDaily, article 8/03/06:
I hope you can read carefully, because there is NO spin in this that even O'Reilly couldn't glean. That's a REAL conservative who Reagan trusted.
And for the record, when your guy is LESS popular with the American people than a guy who had to leave office early because he was about to get IMPEACHED due to criminal actions violating the U.S. Constitution, that's nothing to break out little party hats and funny noisemakers about. His "popularity" came from lies to them to get elected. And it's a disgrace.
Bush. So bad for the economy, even Reagan conservatives think he's a liberal.
My guy? I am not a Republican and I am not a Bush supporter. I consider Bush to be way too far to the left for my tastes, at least on the economy.
Are you actually reading anything I am writing? You are attacking a straw man, not anything I have said or implied. I was following YOUR reasoning, not mine, and simply flipping it on you. I was trying to show how your entire line of thought is specious. Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that for you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Liberal tactic 101. Deflect, deny, ignore facts.
So lets get this straight...
Fishermage posts babble, claiming to be following the previous posts reasoning.
popinjay fires back with a deluge of researched facts.
Fishmage posts again, but still doesn't understand that he didn't follow the original reasoning (he might have a learning disability?)
Faxxer posts how liberals deflect, deny, and ignore.
Amazing, simple amazing.
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
"TO MICHAEL!"
So lets get this straight...
Fishermage posts babble, claiming to be following the previous posts reasoning.
popinjay fires back with a deluge of researched facts.
Fishmage posts again, but still doesn't understand that he didn't follow the original reasoning (he might have a learning disability?)
Faxxer posts how liberals deflect, deny, and ignore.
Amazing, simple amazing.
Let me be very clear so you can not misunderstand me.
I put 100% trust in Fisher's posts. I've watched his posts for months now and he doesn't post BS and he can back his shit up every time. EVERY TIME.
So ya. your post is just the tactic mentioned above now isn't it? You got something to say? Say it.
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
You're still posting things that have nothing to do with anything I am posting, presumably in response to my posts. Interesting in a certain sense, but not worthy of much comment.
fishermage.blogspot.com
OK quick! Who can see the conflicts in those two underlined statements made by the same guy and how it conflicts with this written by a Reagan conservative:
"Federal spending under the Bush administration has grown five times larger than that during the second term of the Clinton administration, charges a conservative Republican activist in a new book that paints the president as a traitor to his party."
And: "If ever there was a case for divided government, here it is," writes Viguerie. "The lesson for many Americans is that today's Republicans cannot be trusted with the keys to both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government."
And: "Cumulative growth in federal expenditures, adjusted for inflation, during the Clinton years actually shrunk by 1.1 percent. Yet, in the Bush first term, it rose 15 percent."
And: "During President Bush's first five years in office, the federal government increased by $616 billion," Viguerie writes. "That's a mammoth 33 percent jump in the size of the federal government in just his first five years! To put this in perspective, this increase of $616 billion is more than the entire federal budget in Jimmy Carter's last years in office. And conservatives were complaining about Big Government back then! How can Bush, (Dennis) Hastert, (Bill) Frist and company look us in the eye and tell us they are fiscal conservatives when in five short years they increased the already-bloated government by more than the budget for the entire federal government when Ronald Reagan was assuming office?"
And: "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times."
And: "Yet another formula for measuring presidential fiscal responsibility, according to Viguerie, is rescissions. Reagan used rescission power to rescind funds authorized by Congress. Ford rescinded $7.9 billion in spending. Carter rescinded $4.6 billion, Reagan $43.4 billion, Bush I $13.1 billion, Clinton $6.6 billion.
But George W. Bush has not rescinded even $1 in congressional spending."
And: "The best illustration of the corrupting influence of power on the Republicans is the explosion of pork-barrel spending projects since 2000," says Viguerie.
Viguerie points to a 121 percent increase in pork-barrel earmarks in the first five years of the Bush administration.
"The size of the federal government is the single most important barometer of the health of the American republic," writes Viguerie. "When domestic federal spending goes up, it's a surefire indicator that something is wrong. And the way spending has been increasing under the Bush administration and the Republican Congress shows that things are seriously wrong."
Fishermage, feel free to comment on any of the above. If not, thanks for stopping by... and have a nice day!
Your still posting things that have nothing to do with anything I am posting, presumably in response to my posts. Interesting in a certain sense, but not worthy of much comment.
I will translate this for whomever else is reading:
I, Fishermage, cannot argue with the facts that you have researched and presented before me. This is due to the fact that, unlike you, I do not have any actual facts or data to support my statements.
Oldgreyhat,
If you want to discuss in this post, do so.
Fisher can go head to head with any in here. CAn you?
Strawman, huh? I don't know about that one.
I'd say the way you've been posting in this thread is like a strawman alright.
The scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.
"TO MICHAEL!"
To clarify, and to show you more respect than you seem to show anyone here:
Bush's tax cuts, which I supported, were great for the economy. I did not however like his runaway spending. Personally I would have cut taxes much more, and cut spending. I would eliminate most federal agencies, almost all socialist welfare state programs, and everywhere the federal government is overstepping what I feel is its only constitutional mandate -- to protect the rights of the people.
This is why I said what I did. No contradiction at all.
Oh, and reagan was too liberal for my tastes as well -- again in terms of economics-- which is partly why I didn't support him either.
Both however were far to conservative for my tastes on social issues, but that's something else entirely -- but those did factor into my lack of support for them or republicans in general.
I hope this time I was clear enough.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
"TO MICHAEL!"
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence.
Just telling it like it is.........
I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?
Thank you very much for a reply.
I understand your position
My positions are pretty conventional -- for a fairly hardcore libertarian who is not of the isolationist wing of the philosophy.
You see that’s the problem. Using conventional and Libertarian in the same sentence.
Just telling it like it is.........
I am curious what would happen to military sending under this more federalist approach?
What problem do you have with what I wrote?
My views are conventional FOR A LIBERTARIAN. That doesn't mean my views would be conventional to a liberal or to a conservative -- but to a moderate, socially liberal and fiscally conservative is VERY conventional.
In fact, there are two kinds of people in the "middle," authoritarians and libertarians. I agree there are probably more authoritarians than libertarians, but neither is particularly unconventional.
Military spending? That would depend on the libertarian. In my view, we are right now in the opening stages of the biggest, most threatening war in our history -- the defensive war we are fighting against the Jihad is far, far worse than WWI, WWII, or the cold war, so it stands to reason that "defense spending" should be increasing dramatically, as it does during all world level conflicts. That's just the price you pay for freedom.
In fact, the military should be by far the biggest part of the federal government. The military, the courts, and the buildings that house the government should be the total package.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Revived, please keep it clean.