|
|
|
|
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 3:53:46 PM | Firefoxe:
You had better do some serious research and rethink some of your positions, because the more you open your mouth, the more you reveal your ignorance. Hans Blix and the UN Inspectors had spent 3 years prior to the US invasion checking out the rumours of WMD's. The Inspection Team found nothing, after extensive searches, and was even willing to spend another year looking for the mystery weapons. But the Bushers did not want to wait. After all, as Bush said in speech after speech, Iraq was a sanctuary and a re-supply point for al-Quaida. As usual, Bush was ignorant of the facts and the truth, and put forth as if it were true his own version (or Richard Perle's and Paul Wolfowitz's versions) of the truth. What he did was lie---knowingly, voluntarily, maliciously. All for his own personal gain and for his vision of his imperial presidency.
The idea that Saddam had nuclear weapons, or even a working nuclear weapons program is now and was then patently absurd. The Niger "yellow cake" story was discredited long before Bush mentioned it and he knew it. It was not faulty intelligence misleading Shrub; it was Shrub deliberately misleading the citizens of the US and the rest of the world.
You need to read my prior post on rationales for invading sovereign countries and the countries we should have invaded before we ever touched Iraq. But the Repuglycans insist on using any means to get their desired results only in countries that cannot fight back: Nixon had Allende assassinated in Chile because even though Allende was a legally elected President, Nixon didn't like his Marxist leanings; Reagan and Ollie North conspired to support the Contras against the legitimately installed government of Nicaragua because the Sandanistas were not to our liking. And there are many more examples, all committed by supposedly Conservative Repuglycans. Good grief---do you know any recent history? I know that you could not remember the Vietnam War, but certainly you could read some modern American history--say from 1900 to the present---so that you might make some intelligent assessment of the current situation. But that is probably asking too much from someone who would rather spew the party line than think independently. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 3:58:58 PM | grog27^^^^^^
I would love to inject DallasGuy with something far different from levity. And do not underestimate the sincerity of his statements. After all, he is from Dallas---as in Texas---as in home of the Bushes and Tom DeLay. Do you really think he has been infected? We need to quarantine Texas, put a big wall around the whole state, something akin to what the govt. did to Manhattan in "Escape From New York." That might keep the riff-raff from invading the rest of the country. Jes' funnin' back atcha, DG. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 4:03:07 PM | It is a full moon and Friday the 13th. Grog is being a nice guy (didn't think I noticed, eh?) and the conspiracy is on the tongues of the left.
By the way, porp, I noticed you are an old guy (do they know you are out of your room?) so I will go easy on you. Fat and ignorant is no way to go through life. I notice you live in Marietta. I have been to Marietta (omfg I hear freaking banjo music). I am going to reel it back because this is not the time or the place. Another day I will enjoy ripping you an new asshole. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:04:05 PM | DG:
Marietta ain't reneck Texas---we don't play no banjos here---the only retrograde music played in Marietta is played in the C&W bars where people do the Texas two-step and drink longnecks and sound like a bunch of fourth graders when they talk-----you should be right at home.
Most of the Marietta/Cobb County area should be to your liking---it is filled with no-brainers, just like you---half-baked pseudo-conservatives, Bush butt-lickers, Neanderthals posing as Repuglycans, and the like. The average educational level for adults here is around 8th grade---is there any wonder why they are conservatives? No imagination, no vision, no intelligence. The only thing that has saved Georgia from ranking lower than Alabama on all national measures and standards is the massive influx over the past 15 years of Northerners---highly educated, culturally aware, movers and shakers types who are re-creating Atlanta, driving it out of the 19th and into the 21st century.
You haven't got the strength, the wit, the style or the intelligence to rip me a new ***hole. You are doomed to fail, just like your politics. What a sad case you are.We need to take up a collection for you. Perhaps something can be done at NIH to restore you to intelligent human status. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:15:24 PM | "It is a full moon and Friday the 13th. Grog is being a nice guy (didn't think I noticed, eh?) "
Hey!! @#%*%you, you @#$%@#-ing &#%*!!! I'm ALWAYS a nice guy!! 
(and SO well-spoken!!)
| |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/13/2006 5:21:52 PM | Foxefire:
First rule of an intelligent reader: READ ON!
You should have read the rest of the post, as well as my other posts. You might learn something. You were around 10 when we lost Vietnam, in your 20's when Reagan invaded Grenada. Do you really remember either of those things personally? Or from reading about them? Or from hearing your parents talk about them? Where does your info come from?
I am not here to attack you, just the weaknesses in your ideas. Of course, you are your ideas---and if you cannot present them in a meaningful way, with solid demonstration of the facts and impeccable logic, then you betray that which makes you unique --- your thoughts about the world and our relationship with it.
If you felt I was attacking you, you misunderstood the thrust of my post and the other posts I have on this thread. You might want to be a little less sensitive and a little more perceptive. But if you feel my post was too personal, I apologize for any hurt I may have caused you. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 9:52:17 AM | Porphyro..
I have been reading your postings and I must say your a doozie!
Name calling and various insults are not necessary to make a point....I used to call all you lefty's DEMONCRATS simply because your views are way out there! Over time I have learned to listen to some of the opposing views....I take the good and bad from BOTH sides and look at reality.....You need to lighten up and see that calling someone a repuglycan or a demoncrat is just a waste of verbage and makes us look stupid!
Discuss your views in an adult mannor or take a hike..... | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 10:15:17 AM | I concur dmotz. I was getting caught up in his trolling. Again, to ferret out a troll, look no further than their last 25 posts. In his case it was mind boggling and extremely revealing.
Lets get back on topic. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 10:45:34 AM | Dallas....
You seem to be getting attacked alot these past few days! It happens when you get close to the truth that our left leaning friends do no want to recognize.
I believe a true conservative should be willing to downsize the government....streamline social programs and put more money back in the peoples hands..
By cutting out the fraud and deciet in the welfare system..billions could be used for our senior citizens who DESERVE the help!
All this talk about foreign and domestic policy can be summed up in a few lines...Instead of going to a full out ground war...Bomb the place to dust...Do not need nukes for this...
Domestic....keep our money home! Stop helping the whole damn world...charity begins at home! Stop our company's from moving over seas or to Mexico....Jobs need to stay here ...
Lock down the border to Mexico...and I mean lock it completely! Go about the business of deporting ALL ILLEGAL(notice I said illegal) aliens back to whence they came! If someone wants to come here...they should do it the right way...apply for your visa and then citizenship.
Stop with all the bullshit social programs that are bleeding us dry....once we can figure out how to stop the fraud and deciet...we can start to educate and give job training... Give a person a fish...you feed him for a day....teach them to fish...and you feed them for life!
I know I went on a rant and was kinda circular....sorry! | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 11:05:41 AM | | Got to agree Dmotz. And as to the personal attacks by some of the posters it really is quite disgusting and it does nothing to help others in the discussion learn from the discussion but rather drives them away. I'm sure people are very passionate about their beliefs I am myself. However insults and bickering achieve nothing and it deeply discredits the posters view's. To say I am a conservative and I believe in less government more personal freedoms, lower taxes, and less restrictions on the freedom of expression pertaining to religion, etc should this be a reason to attack my character? I disagree with others on here but I do respect there opinions and it certainly does not give me the right to insult them or their families and loved ones. I'm sure that even though we disagree on certain issues that if we had met in person we would see that we are not that far apart from each other and would never even consider flinging insults at one another. What happened to decorum and respect? Where did common courtesy disappear too? I am solidly for friendship, morality, and brotherly love. as should all human being should. We live in a wonderful age where we can have intelligent conversation with peoples we would never have dreamed we could ever meet in earlier times. We should consider this a blessing and treat each other with the same respect we would if they were invited into our homes. Peace | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 11:18:38 AM | Totally agree, dmotz. I do not feel our current administration is getting the job done in several areas, and that we can agree. However, writing large checks to foreign governments has been a peace measure for some time. Look at the tension that has built in North Korea with regards to the violations of the NPT. At one point they made it very clear that a quid pro quo (see 'checks' and oil) would put things in its proper order.
I agree with the domestic social issues you bring up, and Bush has taken measures to cut out fraud in the system to some degree. By cutting the programs, a greater focus has been made to ferret out the criminals in the system, and cut them off. More of this type of action needs to take place. Two solutions will possibly work. Throw more money at it (greater manpower to identify fraud) or take money away (current manpower base making hard choices).
@ Ky: Agreed. Common courtesy. I lose it at times, getting worked up. Often feel bad and send private messages to the offended parties. That is why I ignore the more heated threads at times. All in all, we have a great bunch, and I enjoy brawling with you guys. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/14/2006 12:28:38 PM | dmotz:
You are absolutely correct---I was much to blatant in my attacks on Dallas, even when he sent me an email and then blocked any private responses. I apologize to you and the other members of this thread whom I may have insulted or belittled. From now on, I will just present the facts of the case.
First of all, whatever differences you percieve to exist between liberals and conservatives have nothing to do with the size of government. If it did, you would never consider Reagan or GWB a conservative, since under both administrations, the size of the Federal government grew dramatically. Get the stats from the GAO and the CBO: take a look at the number of govt. employees in 1980 when Reagan took over and in 1988 when Reagan left office; do the same thing with the stats for the year 2000 and the current projections for 2006. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised at the growth that resulted from the programs they instituted during their respective administrations.
Streamlining programs means a number of things: hiring truly competent people and paying them competitive salaries---to do that would increase the size of the budgets even though you would be able to reduce the number of workers. See what has happened to the USPS for the most obvious example. It would also mean cutting out certain government suppliers who overcharge for goods and services but who are friends of people in power. Can we really eliminate "the spoils system"? Reformers have tried at city, county and state levels with little success. And finally, streamlining means that we need clear guidelines and protocols. That means getting politicians and lawyers out of the system. Once you let lawyers write the guidelines, they will write language so confusing that it will guarantee jobs for lawyers for years to come. Good luck getting the lawyers out of politics and government.
The fraud and deception in the welfare system pales in comparison to the fraud and deception practiced by businesses with government contracts. Most welfare is actually paid by states individually. Only ongoing government programs like WIC (which provides milk for infants and young children) and medicaid supplements are paid for out of the Federal budget. What is hidden in the budget are all the pork barrel bits that drive up the size of government and the cost. Look what it took to get those $200 million "bridges to nowhere" in Alaska out of the budget---and the bill to get those bridges built in the first place was sponsored by an alleged conservative Republican congressman. It seems to me that if the rich and powerful cannot lead by example, why pick on the poor and defenseless for doing what the rich boys do? The "conservatives" need to clean up their own house before preaching to the rest of us.
We tried bombing Iraq to dust. Remember "shock and awe"???? It did not work. We learned in Vietnam that you cannot win a war strictly from the air (absent nuclear weapons). And since when is the US such a pure moral arbiter that it has the absolute right to determine how other people determine the ways they want to live, the kinds of leaders/governments they want? If we truly believed in the self-determination of peoples, we would not have assassinated Allende or supported the Contras.
With regard to keeping jobs and American-based companies here in the states: Remember that NAFTA and WTO are not, repeat, are not, liberal or Democratic proposals. Reagan was all in favor of both, GHWBush pushed for both and got us into both of them. GWBush has insisted on support for both NAFTA and the WTO and his trade experts in Commerce and State do not want to go back to negotiating bi-lateral trade agreements---it is too much work. If you had listened carefully to the debate among the Democratic candidates for President in the Fall of 2004, you would have heard Dennis Kucinich, the Congressman from Ohio and former Mayor of Cleveland, state quite clearly that if he were elected, he would unilaterally withdraw the US from both NAFTA and the WTO, and would return to negoitated bi-lateral trade agreements. Kucinich is a Roosevelt New Deal Democrat, hardly a conservative.
Locking down the border causes all sorts of repercussions: do we no longer hold ourselves out as the beacon of freedom? do we shoot people trying to cross? should we repeal the part of the Immigration Code that states children born in the US are US citizens regardless of the status of the parents? Would you tighten the immigration quotas, let fewer and fewer people in? What about foreign students who are educated here and then want to stay? how do you handle the issues of the fruit and vegetable growers who rely on migrant labor, mostly foreigners and mostly illegals, to harvest the crops and thus, because they are paid minimal wages, keep the cost of food down? Should we first do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it really saves the country money and benefits society at large to lock down the Mexican border? And do we do the same with Canada? By the way, are you aware that now, if you are a US citizen and you travel to Canada, you need a passport to get BACK INTO the US? You can enter Canada with a US birth certificate and a driver's license; Canada Immigration welcomes you as a tourist, business person, whatever. But even though you are an American citizen and can prove it with a birth certificate and other indicia of nationality, Homeland Security now requires you have a US passport. Incredible? Not at all. And wait until you go to the PO to get an application and find out how much a passport costs. You would think that every citizen would be entitled to a passport----but in our economy, even the US Govt is a player, even though it controls the entire passport market.
Which social programs do you think are, as you put it, "bullshit"? And what would eliminating them mean in terms of people who need whatever assistance those programs generate? If we had a truly level playing field, if all people at birth were guaranteed the same environments to explore possibilities, then perhaps reducing certain social programs would be okay. But in a country where the differences between where and how you live are often an accident of birth (perhaps moreso when I was growing up) rather than a matter of achievement, in a country where people abandon neighborhoods and then cities and then close-in suburbs rather than staying and making them better and refusing to let them deteriorate, and in a country where there is still de facto discrimination if not de jure discrimination (try proving age discrimination in hiring practices), what would you advise we do in place of those social programs you so detest? Should we just allow a kind of Social Darwinism to work its way out----the fittest survive and the rest can die?
If you create new education programs and new job training programs, what are they going to be like? Do we expand head-start, which many congressional conservatives would like to eliminate but are afraid to for seeming to be against children? Or do we pour millions and millions into rebuilding inner-city elementary schools and high schools while ignoring the entire infrastructure and environment existing in our major cities? Do we put money into teacher education? Teacher salaries? And where does that money come from? It seems to me that you are inadvertently creating larger government agencies to take care of these problems. If you relegate all of these programs to the states, you will have the great disparities that you have now---The Deep South (AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, and FL) will continue to have inadequate public education systems because the money will never get where it is most needed (the venality of Southern politicians is a given---I have lived in Atlanta for 18 years now and the most frightening 40 days of any years are the 40 days when the legislature is in session). And as far as job training---what jobs are you going to train people for? The industries that will be employing people in 10 years have not even been invented yet. Of course, I guess you can always train people to be Wal-Mart greeters or MickeyD burger-flippers. But those companies do their own training. So what kinds of job training programs will you propose?
The problems are more complex than you realize. And I will tell you, given where I grew up and the kind of intellectual surroundings around me, I should have and would have been a conservative Republican. But doing time in-country in Vietnam and then working in politics in Washington and being in public education and then practicing law for ten years turned me into a dedicated liberal Democrat. I think what the problem comes down to is the neither the current crop of so-called conservatives and the current crop of alleged liberals has a clear, concise, and articulated philosophy of government. Perhaps if they did, we would have clear choices in our elections. But I think the following paradigm might prove instructive: If we take a position on the far right of the spectrum (known as the conservative right), we might place the ideas of Adolf Hitler there and hold him up as the exemplum. If we take a position on the far left of the spectrum (known as the liberal left), we might place the ideas of Karl Marx there and hold him up as the exemplum. Now I think you would agree that in reality, we have no one that exists on either extreme, and thank goodness for that. Most Americans, in terms of their political beliefs, gravitate toward the center, and a rather narrow portion of the center at that. We make more of our differences than we do of our similarities. I do not doubt for one minute that anyone participating in this thread really believes in the US and would want to see us as a country even better than we are now. But wishing won't make it so. And the best and brightest do not appear to want to commit to public service. And so we get mostly rather mediocre people who have little vision and less principle. Any suggestions for solving that problem? I'd be interested to hear them.
Again, to those people who felt insulted or upset by my previous comments, I do apologize. | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/15/2006 11:36:02 AM | Porphyro...
No apology needed my friend....we all get fired up at times...I did it everyday when I first came to this site...Over time I have learned to listen to the other side and to make a discision on what was posted.
Your right on everything you posted.....I understand that the so called conservatives have enlarged our government...but so have the so called liberals..
I have nothing against any Democrat or Republican....it is the extreme wings of both party's that I dislike.
There are major problems in our country...Coming from Arkansas(born in Cali moved to Ark at 16) I know first hand the poor education that is provided. I am glad I took the bull by the horns and did not rely on the high school for all my education. I believe that you only get as much out of school as you put in.
You yourself know(being in Atlanta) that welfare fraud is wide spread...Medicade fraud is a daily occurance... We do need to streamline this system and use the billions saved for our inner city's and schools..The money saved from the outdated...fraud ridden programs would be plenty to get the ball rolling. People should be screened and if they deserve the help...they get it...if fraud is found...no assistance and some jail time is necessary.
On Nafta...your mistaken....Clinton signed the trade agreement ...not Bush. I think Nafta needs to go away! Reagan started the whole Nafta thing and in my opinion it is a mistake.
As for job training...The wave of the future is computers...this is going to only get bigger over the next ten years..First part of training should be literacy...then program specific training.
Again your right...Most people do gravitate towards the center..I would suggest we take the best of both sides..including all other upstart party's... and learn to govern based on what the people want..Not what some big corporation wants. This is suppose to be a government for the people...by the people..It has not been this way in 30 years..or longer.
The mediocre people have the potential to become great...but with all the lobbying...and money floating around it is hard to stay true to their beliefs.
Being a part of our government and helping to run the country should not be a power trip..but power corrupts..and absolute power corrupts absolutley! | |
|
| Top Reasons to Be a Conservative
Posted: 1/16/2006 1:05:44 PM | dmotz^^^^^^
Actually it was Bush I who signed NAFTA and committed the US to the agreements.
"The NAFTA agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada was signed by President George Bush (the senior) in 1992. But it still had to be approved by Congress. A tough battle would ensue despite high level support in both major parties. The following year, President Clinton mustered all of his political clout to push the measure through Congress."
http://www.stoptheftaa.org/ftaa/nafta.html?OVRAW=nafta&OVKEY=nafta&OVMTC=standard
Clinton wound up getting NAFTA through Congress, since it was a treaty that had to be ratified. But he did so only because of the huge support by both parties. House vote was close at 234-200, but the Senate vote was huge in favor.
NAFTA and the WTO suck---lost jobs, lost beneficial trade agreements----and to get the treaty passed by Congress, Clinton had to agree to more than 100 different side agreements and porkbarrel payoffs. Boy did we get screwed by our own govt. | |
|
| |
| |
| Top Reason to Be a Canadian Conservative
Posted: 1/20/2006 9:06:49 AM | "Just because your P.M is going conservative.....does not mean the whole country will!"
You're absolutely right, dmotz! Very astute observation.
Who knows, it could even be another minority government. (followed by ANOTHER election in 12-18 months....sigh...) | |
|
| Top Reason to Be a Canadian Conservative
Posted: 1/20/2006 9:10:15 AM | I would be shocked if it was not a minority government.
In any event, if the Liberal government does lose power, as the polls suggest, it will give them a good opportunity to clean up their party image. I suspect that they will likely win another majority afterwards.
Also, I agree with Dmotz, that was a good call. | |
|
| Top Reason to Be a Canadian Conservative
Posted: 1/20/2006 12:35:48 PM | Top Reason to Be a Canadian Conservative
Dark blue class ties sure look nice.
I would be shocked if it was not a minority government.
Same.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 