Help a Conservative choose a candidate...

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . a theme that was a cornerstone of Reagan's 1st innaugral address.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was not alive when he said these words, but I once made a song that sampled the closing lines of Reagan's address: "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem."

Which, taken out of context, works surpising well as an anarchist rallying cry.

NT

[Kopefire]

What surprises me is how quickly the republican party has abandoned fiscal conservancy as a point of substance, and more worrisome, how little the average republican seems to care.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that gets me is that most of the real conservatives don't have the balls to response to a post like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box. I don't think I'd even call myself a conservative.

I've commented so many times about the budget deficit that I'm tired of it. The current budget deficit isn't even close to being the biggest of all time as a percentage of GDP. Second of all if one really wants to trim the budget deficit one has to focus on entitlements. Discretionary spending is a minor issue when compared to entitlements, just look at the growth of medicare and medicaid costs the past 3 or 4 years. During the Clinton administration defense spending as a percentage of GDP was at a post WWII low. More defense spending is certainly understandable in light of that.

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany? The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems. Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.

The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate. There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government. It would be silly to state that the size of government wouldn't grow as the population grows for instance. Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about Afghanistan as I don't share his.

The crap about sovereignty wa ridiculous and I've commented on that before many times. I wasted about 10 minutes on this post. I thought the original post was dumb. Did I get my balls back?

[Kopefire]

[ QUOTE ]


What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd suggest that for the term to have meaning, it must in some way relate to the way it's been used historically within the context of the American political spectrum. Ergo, looking to the writtings of people like George Will, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater, etc., would be a good place to start. If one doesn't at least share some of those views on policies, then it is hard to say that one is a conservative and have it retain any meaning for the sake of a public discussion; for, in disavowing it's historical contextual meaning and supplementing your own, you have framed the debate in your own private language to which only you have access.


[ QUOTE ]

Second of all if one really wants to trim the budget deficit one has to focus on entitlements. Discretionary spending is a minor issue when compared to entitlements, just look at the growth of medicare and medicaid costs the past 3 or 4 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have no argument from me. The republicans have stated that as a goal for decades. They control the house and the senate and the white house . . . what of substance have they done about it in the last 4 years?

But you miss the point of being upset about discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, being discretionary, is the easy spending to control. The only excuse for the rash of discretionary spending we've seen under this administration is a total failure to understand that fiscal responsibility should be a first principle of sound government.


[ QUOTE ]

More defense spending is certainly understandable in light of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with increased defense spending when it is justified by needed new weapons systems, increased training, or operational expenditures.

[ QUOTE ]

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany?


[/ QUOTE ]

What about them? As far as I can tell they're doing fine.

The point about nation building is that THIS president made it a plank of his campaign that he would refrain from it. He has failed in that pledge. And yet, in an amusing display of temerity, he accuses others of being "flip-floppers."

[ QUOTE ]

The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations.


[ QUOTE ]

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the 9/11 commission. Frankly, I think they fail to grasp a number of things.

[ QUOTE ]

The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be successfull at dragging us into totalitarianism, one must always appear legitimate.

[ QUOTE ]

There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. Many mean making the government smaller. It is unnecessarily large and beaurocratic.

[ QUOTE ]

It would be silly to state that the size of government wouldn't grow as the population grows for instance.


[/ QUOTE ]

There should be no need for it to grow at the same rate as the population. It may need to grow, but it need not expand.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no reason why government spending as a percentage of per-capita real income should be any greater today than it was 50 years ago. Indeed, given the efficiencies offered by computer systems, it could arguably be lower than that.

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about Afghanistan as I don't share his.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some opinions are more informed than others, though I agree that this is a point on which people may disagree in good faith.

[ QUOTE ]

I wasted about 10 minutes on this post. I thought the original post was dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

*shrug*

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:


What's a "real conservative?" The original poster seems to put himself in some sort of box that he claims everyone else will have to pass a litmus test of being "conservative" to be in that same box.




I'd suggest that for the term to have meaning, it must in some way relate to the way it's been used historically within the context of the American political spectrum. Ergo, looking to the writtings of people like George Will, Ronald Reagan, Goldwater, etc., would be a good place to start. If one doesn't at least share some of those views on policies, then it is hard to say that one is a conservative and have it retain any meaning for the sake of a public discussion; for, in disavowing it's historical contextual meaning and supplementing your own, you have framed the debate in your own private language to which only you have access.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an example of mental masturbation. I don't want to be placed in any box, I'm not an idealogue.


[ QUOTE ]
You have no argument from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you didn't mention it. It's by far the biggest component spending and entitlements, from my understanding an anathama, to conservative ideas. The fact that you don't mention this when proclaiming yourself a coservative tells me your either don't share these ideals yourself, you have your priorities screwed up, or you don't understand very much about government spending.

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans have stated that as a goal for decades.

[/ QUOTE ]

They got control of both the Senate and House for the first time in over 40 years in 1994 and the budget deficit shrunk and a surpluss resulted.

[ QUOTE ]
They control the house and the senate and the white house . . . what of substance have they done about it in the last 4 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few things but not enough in fighting fraud. The legislative branch is more or less "handcuffed" due to the razor thin majority in the Senate. The health savings accounts idea is a good one to start weaning people from this entitlement. Tort reform has been blocked by the Democrats.

[ QUOTE ]
But you miss the point of being upset about discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, being discretionary, is the easy spending to control. The only excuse for the rash of discretionary spending we've seen under this administration is a total failure to understand that fiscal responsibility should be a first principle of sound government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss my point. Increases is discretionary spending is insignificant when compared to entitlements. The operative word is insignificant.



[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

As far as nation building, what about post WWII Japan and Germany?




What about them? As far as I can tell they're doing fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a result of nation building post WWII.

[ QUOTE ]
The point about nation building is that THIS president made it a plank of his campaign that he would refrain from it. He has failed in that pledge. And yet, in an amusing display of temerity, he accuses others of being "flip-floppers."

[/ QUOTE ]

Post 9/11 a lot of people rightfully changed their outlook. What should have been Bush's response to 9/11?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Read the 9/11 Commission Report for a good discussion regarding the roots of Islamic terrorism and what they want to do to the Americans.




I've read the 9/11 commission. Frankly, I think they fail to grasp a number of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what as far as their assessment of the middle east?


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

Are you stating that the size of government should be what is was 50 years ago?




There is no reason why government spending as a percentage of per-capita real income should be any greater today than it was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say otherwise. You're the one who talked about shrinking government not shrinking government per capita. In order to do that significantly in the long run the growth in entitlement spending will have to decrease significantly. Something apparently you feel is less important than increases in discretionary spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, given the efficiencies offered by computer systems, it could arguably be lower than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Effeciencies of computer systems has little to do with it.


[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

The fact of the matter is that the Middle East has major econmic and political problems.




Yes, they do. The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like what Saddam was doing for Iraq i.e. establishing borders that were harmoniuous to the natural ethnic and religious segregation of the Iraqi population?

[ QUOTE ]
There are probably less necessary Executive branch cabinets. When people talk about wanting a smaller government what they really mean is slowing the rate of growth of government.




No. Many mean making the government smaller. It is unnecessarily large and beaurocratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again are stating that government should be the same size as it was 50 years ago?

[ QUOTE ]
There should be no need for it to grow at the same rate as the population. It may need to grow, but it need not expand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I'm glad I got you to clear that up.

[ QUOTE ]
The rationale for a Homeland Security department seems perfectly legitimate.




To be successfull at dragging us into totalitarianism, one must always appear legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way is this happening?

[ACPlayer]

Popping in....
You are delusional or ignorant.
...popping out.

[ACPlayer]

My point was that Jimbo is not a conservative.

I agreed totally with your first post and we are both on similar wavelength based on your present post.

The Republican party has given up its true conservative roots and has been taken over by a bunch of self serving thugs disguised as religious zealots and corporate snake oil salesmen. We have lost all semblance of fiscal and monetary discipline. We have gone from giving handouts to our people to giving hand outs and nation building across the planet. Oddly enough Gore did a better job of cutting government then Bush has even tried to do. We have sacrificed our basic principles of liberty and individual freedoms in the bogeyman of the terrorist.

So, given your posts, I tend to agree with a lot you say. I am planning to vote for (remind me who is the democrat this year) Kerry, mostly to let the republicans know that they must shape up again.

We now have two parties that are [self censored].

[MMMMMM]

Any conclusion based on a minuscule sample size is a ridiculous conclusion. Read the website and get a clue, unless your purpose is merely to trash Bush rather than seeking fiscal solutions which may be more in keeping with your philosophy than are the current Republican efforts.

[MMMMMM]

"The Republican party has given up its true conservative roots..."

In a lot of ways that is true, ACPlayer.

Also, as someone said before:

The Republicans have become Democrats, and the Democrats have become Socialists.

More truth to that than one might think.

[MMMMMM]

"The biggest problem they have is that the various world powers, USA, France, Russia, and Britain chiefly, won't stay the hell out and let them establish boarders that are in some way harmonious to the natural ethnic and religous segregation of the populations."

Not even close to their biggest problem.

Their biggest problem is that they are all dictatorships and theocracies and as such unfree societies, are unable to compete economically with the rest of the world or to develop vibrant, growing economies. One reason they remain mired in such backwards ways is the traditions they carry with them (politico-religious).