1. #26
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Not funny. Hysterical. Dad worked in the defense industry for almost 30 years. Most of it interacting with the USAF and the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

    I'll take his word (and he is a staunch conservative) over yours any day.
    Yes, his dollars that he is given is fixed, but there is still a lot of room to how that money is used or wasted within the project. It is interesting how much money his company spends on lobbying for that money, a vicious cycle, sort of like the unions.

    Money is placed for general and specific areas, within the areas much latitude is still given. But regardless, Les Aspin's and Clinton's screw ups an inaction with DoD had little to do with money and much to do with policy and mangement.

    How does such a Lefty like you survive in Orange County anyhow?

  2. #27
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    First of all. It's 3% @ 50. Not 55.

    Gotcha.

    BTW, that's not as lucrative as Connecticut

    State Police are, IIRC, 3% per year, based on average of last three years of service, after 20 years of service -- I have one friend whose eligible for retirement and can start collecting when he's 40. Most other police agencies are similiar, otherwise they lose people to those with better pensions. I'm not sure what the municipal firefighters do.

    It is a very lucrative pension plan compared to private industry, or many other states. It doesn't mean it's unjustifiable (and there's some sound logic behind "public safety" pensions), but it being questioned is certainly reasonable.

    Googling the issue, it's clear it came about from the agencies trying to have their cake and eat it too -- CalPERS enjoyed large surpluses in the 1990s stock market, and agencies tried to both increase their pension benefits and cut their contributions based on the "irrational exuberance" rates of return. Now with more normal returns but bigger pension obligations, they find themselves paying bigger premiums than expected.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  3. #28
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    How does such a Lefty like you survive in Orange County anyhow?
    It's easy. I just point out the bunglings of Bush and the local GOP electeds and they shut right up.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by DennisTheMenace
    Money is placed for general and specific areas, within the areas much latitude is still given. But regardless, Les Aspin's and Clinton's screw ups an inaction with DoD had little to do with money and much to do with policy and mangement.
    Explain this to me. With all those screw ups as you put them. How was it the US military was able to kick the hell out of two opponents in a very short period of time?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #30
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Explain this to me. With all those screw ups as you put them. How was it the US military was able to kick the hell out of two opponents in a very short period of time?
    I have been tring to be good and not get back into these discussions...then I see crap like this.....Hey Scfire...how much experiance do you have in the combat arms during the Clinton years? I had from 95-00, and from 00-03 during Bush.....During the Bubba years...we had little or no money to use on ammunition. We fired live ammo once a year. And during CAX...we would always run out or units would have to show up with nothing. We had to "play" war...and say "bang"...and I am not exagerating....flight hours would usually run out in June...and we would have to strech it to October. I could go on and on...but I will answer this question...The reason we kicked the hell out of 2 opponents in a very short period of time is becasue the US Military man strives on person initiative and motivation. The men know how to get the job done no matter what the consiquence or availibility of gear. Our history proves this....Iwo, Tarawa, Normandy, Bastonge, Chosin, Hue, and Gulf I. Have you not noticed all the changes since Bush....the USMC had new, better utilites, everyone has the new interceptor body armor..improved Kevlar Turtles, improve weapons such as the Javilen, M4, and ,M16A3 and A4. It all comes down to the Marine or Soldier on the ground with a rifle. Not a tank, plane or ship....that's all support. Its the Mean Mutha with a rifle that make a difference. He is driven by tradition, honor, courage, and commitment. These Core Values manifest into something else later on after that mean mutha expeciances combat....FireLT understands me as does Sharkie.

    If you are thinking that Clinton "modernized" the military you are smoking crack. For example Under the 10 division redesign from the Secretary of the Army, the 2nd Armored Division was reflagged as the 4th Infantry Division in December 1995...so much for bubba's modernization...the unit already existed. But to the lay person the 3ID and 4ID were Clintons projects. But to the Military, we knew the real deal. Most of the major equipment was already approved during Reagan and Bush 41. The JCS had to beg to get new items approved becasue Clinton felt we had no Enemy since the Warsaw Pact had disolved. Granted bush 41 also felt the same and that's when the down sizing started...Clinton took it to the extereme....he dissovled 10 Active Duty Army divisions and butcherd 1 Marine Division. The later of which was to counter any Korean or Chinese moves in the PTO. Its a widly know FACT that Clinton butchered the Military and put hand cuffs on us...history shows this. So I don;t even know why we have to debate it.
    Last edited by VinnieB; 10-01-2004 at 11:28 PM.
    IACOJ Member

  6. #31
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    VinnieB.

    Thank you for the history lesson.

    The Pentagon has over $2T it can not give a proper accounting. How much should we be spending?

    All that butchering was still done under the watchful eye of a GOP Congress.

    And with all the shortages you mention, the first item Bush asked for after 9/11 was funding for National Missile Defense. How would some pie in the sky super gizmachi weapons system whose ability to function is questionable solve all the issues you mention? Or twenty maniacs with box cutters for that matter.

    I've talked to several troops returning from Iraq. They have nothing but bitterness towards the service contracts being provided by Halliburton. Food is lousy, service is terrible and the company has been charged and found over charging for any number of items it is responsible to provide. For all the sacrifice we are asked to believe our military personnel are making apparently it doesn't translate to the profiteering being done by corporations benefitting from its association with the POTUS. That's only a small example of course. But I believe it is endemic of a larger problem.

    Your angst is misplaced.
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-02-2004 at 12:27 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86
    VinnieB.

    Thank you for the history lesson....Your angst is misplaced.

    First off...did you miss were I mentioned that the cuts started under Bush?...I metioned this in previous post too...and I have included in the past about the congress...why I thinks the senete was at teh time...51 Republican and 49 Democrat....and congress are like lesbians...we all know the punch line to that...

    The missle defense thing...well to me the jury is still out about that...I am doing my homework thought...but i don't see how that became an issue here....but if you would like to discuss N.Korea and China...feel free to ask away.

    The troops returning and complaining...WOW...CAll the PRESS big NEWS...since when didn't troops complain about supply and logistics. I spent 6 months in Afganistan, 3 Months in Kosovo, 1 Month in Bosnia, and 3 months in Turkey near the Iraqi Border in 97....the food sucked...the food sucks in garrison too...I couldn't even get replacement uniforms in garrison..on the largest Marine base in the world....Please don't lecture me about military logistics....
    Here's another history lesson...on June 6, 1944...we landed in Normady..shortly there after the beach was secured...we began to stock pile supplies.....many supplies remained on the beach in the spot they were dumped unitl after the war..they were never touched. Hell our supply system was not that great. Our biggest problem was keeping units supplied with addiquate ammuntion stores...we had a very hard time getting 105mm and 75mm rounds to Arty and Amror unit....Read the book entiled.."A Soldiers Load and the Mobility of a Nation" before you ask me a question like that again. Haliburton..I asked you this before...who is as large as them? Who can do what they do?...Oh I know!...It was a vast right wing conspiracey created by Cheney 10 years ago....he could't wait to start another war and get tons of money....

    For all the sacrifice we are asked to believe our military personnel are making apparently it doesn't translate to the profiteering being done by corporations benefitting from its association with the POTUS. That's only a small example of course. But I believe it is endemic of a larger problem.

    You don't read history much do you?...Again read the book I mentioned...Corporations have alwasy benefited from the sacrifice of the military..its a COLD HARD FACT........and do you really believe Bush started this war to make money for himself and his friends?...GET OFF IT!....See the above comment abouve Cheney.

    BTW Were do you get your rock?...How do I get some?...I wan't to smoke what your smoking....maybe then I can see what you really think.
    Last edited by VinnieB; 10-02-2004 at 01:29 AM.
    IACOJ Member

  8. #33
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    And to quote the immortal Olson Johnson, "who can argue with that?"
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Once again, you are asked questions, but choose not to answer them.

    People here answer almost every question you ask of them, and when you have question posed back at you, you do at least one of two things - 1) insult them, and / or 2) not answer the questions.

    It grows quite tiresome to have this situation continue to occur.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie
    Once again, you are asked questions, but choose not to answer them.

    People here answer almost every question you ask of them, and when you have question posed back at you, you do at least one of two things - 1) insult them, and / or 2) not answer the questions.

    It grows quite tiresome to have this situation continue to occur.

    Ditto..
    IACOJ Member

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Yet you both keep playing. And you two are the only ones getting tired.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    I didn't say I was getting tired of "the game" I said I was getting tired of your manner of not answering questions. You call other hypocrites but don't seem to mind doing the same.

    It really is quite a childish behavior. I just want some questions answered. A conversation is a two way street and you should really try completing the conversation. It could gain you some respect by doing so.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  13. #38
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie
    I didn't say I was getting tired of "the game" I said I was getting tired of your manner of not answering questions. You call other hypocrites but don't seem to mind doing the same.

    It really is quite a childish behavior. I just want some questions answered. A conversation is a two way street and you should really try completing the conversation. It could gain you some respect by doing so.
    Oh boo hoo hoo. The only ones whining like a little child is you.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  14. #39
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Explain this to me. With all those screw ups as you put them. How was it the US military was able to kick the hell out of two opponents in a very short period of time?
    Who are these two opponents that Clinton and Aspin kicked the heck out of? They took a strong showing in Somolia and turned it into a loss and 18 dead Rangers. Clinton then allowed one barricks, two embassies and a ship to be blown up and barely retaliated for any of it.

    Since 9/11 we kicked *** over two enemies because we had leadership at the top.

  15. #40
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Oh boo hoo hoo. The only ones whining like a little child is you.
    So I am acting like a child. Who does the name calling? Who does not answer those questions when they are posed (lik a child does)?

    I am not asking for much out of you, just a pleasant, non hate filled conversation about politics (yes everyone, it can be done), and the questions posed to you to be answered, as those posed by you are answered. Not a whole lot to ask is it?
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by DaSharkie



    I am not asking for much out of you, just a pleasant, non hate filled conversation about politics (yes everyone, it can be done), and the questions posed to you to be answered, as those posed by you are answered. Not a whole lot to ask is it?
    Not at all. Here's one you might like.



    The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush
    William Bryk

    Theodore Roosevelt, that most virile of presidents, insisted that, "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." With that in mind, I say: George W. Bush is no conservative, and his unprincipled abandonment of conservatism under the pressure of events is no statesmanship. The Republic would be well served by his defeat this November.

    William F. Buckley's recent retirement from the National Review, nearly half a century after he founded it, led me to reflect on American conservatism's first principles, which Buckley helped define for our time. Beneath Buckley's scintillating phrases and rapier wit lay, as Churchill wrote of Lord Birkenhead, "settled and somewhat somber conclusions upon... questions about which many people are content to remain in placid suspense": that political and economic liberty were indivisible; that government's purpose was protecting those liberties; that the Constitution empowered government to fulfill its proper role while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; and that its genius lay in the Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit that the powers not delegated to government are reserved to the states or to the people.

    More generally, American conservatives seek what Lord Acton called the highest political good: to secure liberty, which is the freedom to obey one's own will and conscience rather than the will and conscience of others. Any government, of any political shade, that erodes personal liberty in the name of social and economic progress must face a conservative's reasoned dissent, for allowing one to choose between right and wrong, between wisdom and foolishness, is the essential condition of human progress. Although sometimes the State has a duty to impose restrictions, such curbs on the liberty of the individual are analogous to a brace, crutch or bandage: However necessary in the moment, as they tend to weaken and to cramp, they are best removed as soon as possible. Thus American conservative politics championed private property, an institution sacred in itself and vital to the well being of society. It favored limited government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and avoidance of foreign entanglements.

    More subtly, American conservatism viewed human society as something of an organism in itself. This sense of society's organic character urged the necessity of continuity with the past, with change implemented gradually and with as little disruption as possible. Thus, conservatism emphasized the "civil society" - the private voluntary institutions developed over time by passing the reality test - i.e., because they work - such as families, private property, religious congregations and neighborhoods - rather than the State. In nearly every sense, these institutions were much closer to the individuals who composed them than the State could ever be and had the incidental and beneficial effect of protecting one's personal liberty against undue intrusion from governments controlled by fanatics and busybodies, that which Edmund Burke presciently called the "armed ideologies," and thus upheld our way of life as flying buttresses supported a Gothic cathedral.

    But the policies of this administration self-labeled "conservative" have little to do with the essence of tradition. Rather, they tend to centralize power in the hands of the government under the guise of patriotism. If nothing else, the Bush administration has thrown into question what being a conservative in America actually means.

    Forty years ago, when Lyndon Johnson believed the United States could afford both Great Society and the Vietnam War, conservatives attacked his fiscal policies as extravagant and reckless. Ten years ago, the Republican Party regained control of Congress with the Contract with America, which included a balanced-budget amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. But today, thanks to tax cuts and massively increased military spending, the Bush administration has transformed, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a ten-year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.4 trillion: a turnaround of $10 trillion in roughly 32 months.

    The Bush Administration can't even pretend to keep an arm's length from Halliburton, the master of the no-bid government contract. Sugar, grain, cotton, oil, gas and coal: These industries enjoy increased subsidies and targeted tax breaks not enjoyed by less-connected industries. The conservative Heritage Foundation blasts the administration's agricultural subsidies as the nation's most wasteful corporate welfare program. The libertarian Cato Institute called the administration's energy plan "three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics...a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington" that "does little but transfer wealth from taxpayers to well-connected energy lobbies." And the Republican Party's Medicare drug benefit, the largest single expansion of the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, was designed to appeal to senior citizens who, as any competent politician knows, show up at the polls.

    None of this is conservative, although it is in keeping with the Bush family's history. Kevin Phillips, whose 1969 classic The Emerging Republican Majority outlined the policies that would lead to the election of President Reagan, describes in his American Dynasty the Bush family's rise to wealth and power through crony capitalism: the use of contacts obtained in public service for private profit. Phillips argues the Bushes don't disfavor big government as such: merely that part of it that regulates business, maintains the environment or aids the needy. Subsidizing oil-well drilling through tax breaks, which made George H. W. Bush's fortune, or bailing out financial institutions, such as Neil Bush's bankrupt Silverado Savings and Loan, however, is a good thing.

    This deficit spending also helps Bush avoid the debate on national priorities we would have if these expenditures were being financed through higher taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis. After all, we're not paying the bill now; instead, it will come due far in the future, long after today's policy-makers are out of office. And this debt is being incurred just as the baby boomers are about to retire. In January 2004, Charles Kolb, who served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush White Houses, testified before Congress that, at a time when demographics project more retirees and fewer workers, projected government debt will rise from 37 percent of the economy today to 69 percent in 2020 and 250 percent in 2040. This is the sort of level one associates with a Third World kleptocracy.

    Even worse than this extravagance are the administration's unprecedented intrusions into our constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act. If it does not violate the letter of the Fourth Amendment, it violates its spirit. To cite two examples, the FBI has unchecked authority through the use of National Security Letters to require businesses to reveal "a broad array of sensitive information, including information about the First Amendment activities of ordinary Americans who are not suspected of any wrongdoing." Despite the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure, the government need not show probable cause: It does not need to obtain a warrant from a judge. And who can trust any law enforced by John Ashcroft, who single-handedly transformed a two-bit hubcap thief like Jose Padilla first into a threat to national security and then, through his insistence that Padilla, an American citizen, could be held without charges, into a Constitutional crisis?

    All this stems from Bush's foreign policy of preemptive war, which encourages war for such vague humanitarian ends as "human rights," or because the United States believes another country may pose a threat to it. Its champions seem to almost joyously anticipate a succession of wars without visible end, with the invasion of Iraq merely its first fruit: former Bush appointee Richard Perle, from his writings on foreign policy, would have us war against nearly every nation that he defines as a rogue. The ironic consequence of this policy to stabilize the world is greater instability. It reminds me of the old FDR jingle from the Daily Worker:

    I hate war, and so does Eleanor,

    But we won't feel safe until everybody's dead.

    To be sure, there's more than enough blame to go around with the Congress' cowardly surrender to the Executive of its power to declare war. The Founding Fathers, who knew war from personal experience, explicitly placed the war power in the hands of the Congress. As James Madison wrote over 200 years ago:

    "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war... The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."

    But since the Korean War (which the Congress defined as a "police action" to avoid using its war powers), war has been waged without its formal declaration. Thus Congressional power atrophies in the face of flag-waving presidents. Perhaps Congress is too preoccupied with swilling from the gravy trough that our politics has become to recall its Constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government, guarding its powers and privileges against executive usurpation. The Congress has forgotten that the men who exacted Magna Carta from King John at sword point instituted Parliament to restrain the executive from its natural tendency to tax, spend and war.

    Moreover, there is nothing conservative about war. As Madison wrote:

    "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and...degeneracy of manners and of morals...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

    By contrast, business, commerce and trade, founded on private property, created by individual initiative, families and communities, has done far more to move the world forward than war. Yet faith in military force and an arrogant belief that American values are universal values still mold our foreign policy nearly a century after Woodrow Wilson, reelected with a promise of keeping America out of World War I, broke faith with the people by engineering a declaration of war within weeks of his second inauguration.

    George W. Bush's 2000 campaign supposedly rejected Wilsonian foreign policy by articulating both the historic Republican critique of foreign aid and explicitly criticizing Bill Clinton's nation-building. Today, the administration insists we can be safe only by compelling other nations to implement its vision of democracy. This used to be called imperialism. Empires don't come cheap; worse, "global democracy" requires just the kind of big government conservatives abhor. When the Wall Street Journal praises the use of American tax dollars to provide electricity and water services in Iraq, something we used to call socialism, either conservatism has undergone a tectonic shift or the paper's editors are disingenuous.

    This neo-conservative policy rejects the traditional conservative notion that American society is rooted in American culture and history - in the gradual development of American institutions over nearly 230 years - and cannot be separated from them. Instead, neo-conservatives profess that American values, which they define as democracy, liberty, free markets and self-determination, are "universal" rather than particular to us, and insist they can and should be exported to ensure our security.

    This is nonsense. The qualities that make American life desirable evolved from our civil society, created by millions of men and women using the freedom created under limited constitutional government. Only a fool would believe they could be spread overnight with bombs and bucks, and only a fool would insist that the values defined by George W. Bush as American are necessarily those for which we should fight any war at all.

    Wolfowitz, Perle and their allies in the Administration claimed the Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers. Somehow, more than a year after the president's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op, a disciplined body of well-supplied military professionals is still waging war against our troops, their supply lines and our Iraqi collaborators. Indeed, the regime we have just installed bids fair to become a long-term dependent of the American taxpayer under U.S. military occupation.

    The Administration seems incapable of any admission that its pre-war assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were incorrect. Instead, in a sleazy sleight of hand worthy of Lyndon Johnson, the Administration has retrospectively justified its war with Saddam Hussein's manifold crimes.

    First, that is a two-edged sword: If the crimes of a foreign government against its people justify our invasion, there will be no end of fighting. Second, the pre-war assertions were dishonest: Having decided that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, the policymakers suppressed all evidence that it did not. This immorality is thrown in high relief by the war's effect on Iraqi civilians. We have no serious evidence of any connection between Iraq and 9/11. Dropping 5000-pound bombs on thousands of people who had nothing to do with attacking us is as immoral as launching airplanes at an American office building.

    To sum up: Anything beyond the limited powers expressly delegated by the people under the Constitution to their government for certain limited purposes creates the danger of tyranny. We stand there now. For an American conservative, better one lost election than the continued empowerment of cynical men who abuse conservatism through an exercise of power unrestrained by principle through the compromise of conservative beliefs. George W. Bush claims to be conservative. But based upon the unwholesome intrusion into domestic life and personal liberty of his administration and the local governments who imitate it, George W. Bush is no conservative, no friend of limited, constitutional government - and no friend of freedom. The Republic would be better served by his defeat in November.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Copyright © 2000-2004 Agora Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-03-2004 at 03:32 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #42
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    I probably should have clarified my request that you answer a question with your own thoughts and opinions instead of just posting an article. I recognize your tactic from previous posts, but you tend to refrain from poasting your own thoughts and answers.

    It does seem like too much to ask.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  18. #43
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    While I agree with the premise George W. isn't true to traditional conservative values, let's put it in perspective that the article first appeared in a weekly free newspaper in New York, and the author quoted the American Communist Party's newspaper ("It reminds me of the old FDR jingle from the Daily Worker:") -- which albeit could just show you a particularly well-read author, still raises a red flag (no pun intended).

    That difference between Conservative and "Right" as I mentioned before is what is at work here -- unlike "conservatives" the "Right" are people in government and who seek as much as practical government solutions -- for instance instead of refining investigative techniques, let's write a "Patriot Act!"

    And while the budget deficit has ballooned, it is an application of Keynesian economics to use Federal tax & spend policies to goose the economy -- in this case instead of taking out of one pocket and putting in the other, we're leaving more of it in the pocket to begin with and letting companies and citizens decide where to spend it.

    If you're going to make a big deal from Bush's deficits, explain to me how Kerry offers fiscal conservatives a better option -- here's a person best I can tell who wants to repeal the tax cuts so that revenue can be spent for new and expanded programs -- net effect, we still have deficits just as large and the government has grown in size.

    ‘‘Neither campaign has released a detailed and realistic plan . . . to cut the budget deficit in half," said Brian Riedle, federal budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. ‘‘Neither candidate has a realistic plan to deal with runaway (federal) spending or the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare."
    (Good article I googled looking for facts on this matter from today: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/elec...003-C1-01.html )

    So the fiscal conservatives, who may not like the way's Bush has grown the government, are faced with an even worse choice in Kerry whose stated goal is repeal much of the tax cut and place it towards new spending.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90

    So the fiscal conservatives, who may not like the way's Bush has grown the government, are faced with an even worse choice in Kerry whose stated goal is repeal much of the tax cut and place it towards new spending.
    I'll take my chances. If it means raising taxes to start paying off this debt, so be it.

    I'm willing to do that so my heirs aren't forced to bear the burden of our indifference.

    Like the article stated. We went from a plan of debt reduction and surplus to a plan of ever increasing deficits and mounting debt.

    If that is the work of fiscal conservatives I would hate to see your idea of fiscal liberals.

    First thing we do is get a President who has command of the English language.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #45
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    Where has Kerry laid out SPECIFICS of reducing the deficit?

    He talks about rolling back the tax cuts to spend on new programs...

    Which means the next time the economy declines, the deficits will be even bigger since we now have a higher level of spending committed to.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

  21. #46
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    I'll take my chances. If it means raising taxes to start paying off this debt, so be it.

    I'm willing to do that so my heirs aren't forced to bear the burden of our indifference.

    Dude...really....were do you get your rock?...."bear the burden...."...give me a break!!!! How exactley are they going to bear the burden?....You talk about your heirs not having to pay off the debt....but you are ok with Kerry raising taxes so you can pay of the current one.....don't you think you'll go throught the same "debt recovery" process...and if so what will you have left to leave to your heirs?
    IACOJ Member

  22. #47
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    Which means the next time the economy declines, the deficits will be even bigger since we now have a higher level of spending committed to.
    And who committed us to that increased level of spending?

    Um, lemme think, oh yeah it would be the 'fiscal conservatives'.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,302

    Default

    Originally posted by VinnieB


    Dude...really....were do you get your rock?...."bear the burden...."...give me a break!!!! How exactley are they going to bear the burden?....You talk about your heirs not having to pay off the debt....but you are ok with Kerry raising taxes so you can pay of the current one.....don't you think you'll go throught the same "debt recovery" process...and if so what will you have left to leave to your heirs?
    What are you talking about? Here's a piece of free advice. Take it for how much you paid for it.

    Stay away from the Agent Orange.
    Last edited by scfire86; 10-04-2004 at 01:32 AM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    VinnieB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    On the couch in my skivvies
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Originally posted by scfire86


    Stay away from the Agent Orange.

    ROTFLMAO!........


    HA!...As soon as you answer our questions instead of either changing the subject or just posting some long, drawn out, expected article to avoid answering....

    Sure free advice from you...right..ok ...well here's mine...put down the crack pipe and step away from the Kool-Aid...
    IACOJ Member

  25. #50
    Senior Member
    Dalmatian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    And who committed us to that increased level of spending?

    Um, lemme think, oh yeah it would be the 'fiscal conservatives'.


    What kind of Orwellian double speak is that?

    My comment was very specific at Kerry -- who wants to repeal the tax cuts IN ORDER TO FUND NEW SPENDING. Not cut the deficit -- to fund new and expanded programs. So you would still have the same deficit, just this time accompanied with higher federal spending to boot. So when you have the next slow down, you're starting from a higher base level of spending to run deficits up on.

    Fiscal Conservatives may not agree with what Bush & Congress have done with rampant pork barrel & social welfare expansion (although they may begrudge some of that as necessary to goose the economy through weak times). But they'll take Bush over someone whose answer is to raise taxes -- not to control the deficit, but to fund even more new spending.
    IACOJ Canine Officer
    20/50

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register