lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 24, 2007 11:27:09 GMT -5
No. No idea. So was your response not a joke? No....it wasn't a joke..... Snap! Ouch! Thanks for the reminder, Dale. I do honesty try not to be hostile (believe or not) and have apoligized to Blondie on one occasion. I think most people get really hostile in a forum because they feel free to say whatever is on their mind. If we were all in a room together things would go alot different.....for the most part It's much easier to bash someone when you're not face to face with them. I'm twenty-six. Come Sept. I'll have been married seven years. I have two kids, a girl and a boy, almost three and just over a year old. I live in Blount County near Springville. I work in the corporate office of Infinity Insurance just off 280 in the Collonade. I'm a Software Testing Specialist in the IT department. My wife stays at home with the kids and we plan to homeschool them in the future. My hobbies include writing/recording/mixing music, movies, and playing XBOX with my friends. Last year I just finished building my house. 1700 sq ft of blood and sweat. Did everything except lay brick for the foundation and the drywall. I don't do drywall It's paid off, though. I saved about $55,000 by building it myself. ......might drop by with some tacos....
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 11:32:56 GMT -5
No. No idea. So was your response not a joke? No....it wasn't a joke..... Snap! Ouch! Thanks for the reminder, Dale. I do honesty try not to be hostile (believe or not) and have apoligized to Blondie on one occasion. I think most people get really hostile in a forum because they feel free to say whatever is on their mind. If we were all in a room together things would go alot different.....for the most part It's much easier to bash someone when you're not face to face with them. I'm twenty-six. Come Sept. I'll have been married seven years. I have two kids, a girl and a boy, almost three and just over a year old. I live in Blount County near Springville. I work in the corporate office of Infinity Insurance just off 280 in the Collonade. I'm a Software Testing Specialist in the IT department. My wife stays at home with the kids and we plan to homeschool them in the future. My hobbies include writing/recording/mixing music, movies, and playing XBOX with my friends. Last year I just finished building my house. 1700 sq ft of blood and sweat. Did everything except lay brick for the foundation and the drywall. I don't do drywall It's paid off, though. I saved about $55,000 by building it myself. ......might drop by with some tacos.... WTH? What do those post of mine have to do with anything in this thread? Did you mean to post that here? Getting confused again, lawman?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 11:41:34 GMT -5
He don't want no lousy tacos!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 14:52:24 GMT -5
When did Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy attack the United States please? The Germans sank our merchant ships. Iraq did nothing of the sort. Not until they had declared war on us. Wanna try again?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 15:00:05 GMT -5
Bush has admitted to using cocaine. If that were true, he would never have been elected once, much less twice. Democrats and the MSM would have joined forces to destroy him....not that they haven't anyway but they've had to invent scandals to do so and haven't gotten away with it. The Constitution gives the Executive branch the right to negotiate traties and to Congress for ratification of treaties. Such treaties often include mutual defense pledges. Oh...and that "g-------d piece of paper" quote is rubbish. Never happened. Amaturish attempt to change the subject. You said that Bush had transferred missile technology to the Chinese when in fact Clinton did it. Stick to the issue, please. I do appreciate the belly laugh your calling me a "socialist" and "communist" gave me. I needed to read something truly absurd now and then and Ron Paul hasn't said anything lately, so thanks for stepping up and filling the void.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 27, 2007 19:31:43 GMT -5
Ron Paul is not a puppet!!!
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 27, 2007 19:36:53 GMT -5
I do appreciate the belly laugh your calling me a " socialist" and " communist" gave me. I needed to read something truly absurd now and then and Ron Paul hasn't said anything lately, so thanks for stepping up and filling the void. Brandon.....How many times must I have to say it? WOMI is a Neocon......not a communist or socialist. He takes the worst of those groups' doctrines and tries to incorporate them into the Republican Party and maintain that he is "one of us". Its Neocon Brandon. Say it three times and it will help you.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 27, 2007 21:28:50 GMT -5
I do appreciate the belly laugh your calling me a " socialist" and " communist" gave me. I needed to read something truly absurd now and then and Ron Paul hasn't said anything lately, so thanks for stepping up and filling the void. Brandon.....How many times must I have to say it? WOMI is a Neocon......not a communist or socialist. He takes the worst of those groups' doctrines and tries to incorporate them into the Republican Party and maintain that he is "one of us". Its Neocon Brandon. Say it three times and it will help you. Are these W.O.M.I.'s 'buddies'....'eh, bosses? The Weekly Standard, like The Nation, is an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism that allows the expression of opinion. In an interview with senior Standard writer Matt Labash published by JournalismJobs.com in May 2003, Labash was asked why conservative media outlets had enjoyed recent popularity. Labash responded, somewhat jocularly:[3]
“ Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually. ”
The American Conservative said of the magazine "f Rupert Murdoch’s purpose was to make things happen in Washington and in the world, he could not have leveraged it better. One could spend 10 times that much on political action committees without achieving anything comparable." [4]
[edit] Editorial staff and contributors Terry Eastland, publisher, often writes articles in the magazine.
[edit] Editorial staff Editorial staff who often appear with by-lines in the magazine:
William Kristol, editor Fred Barnes, executive editor Richard Starr, deputy editor Claudia Anderson, managing editor Senior editors: Christopher Caldwell Andrew Ferguson David Tell Assistant managing editors: David Skinner Victorino Matus Philip Terzian, Books & Arts editor Senior writers: Stephen F. Hayes Matt Labash Assistant editors: Matthew Continetti Sonny Bunch Jonathan V. Last, online editor Daniel McKivergan, online foreign editor Duncan Currie, reporter Michael Goldfarb, deputy online editor
[edit] Contributing editors Gerard Baker Max Boot Joseph Bottum Tucker Carlson John J. DiIulio Jr. Noemie Emery Joseph Epstein David Frum David Gelernter Reuel Marc Gerecht Brit Hume Frederick W. Kagan Robert Kagan Charles Krauthammer Tod Lindberg P.J. O'Rourke John Podhoretz Irwin M. Stelzer
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 28, 2007 0:08:51 GMT -5
I believe he may be old Murdoch's long lost cousin.....He still has that gay avatar of Bush "saving" our butts. I have gas masks, numerous kevlar vests, rifles, thousands of rounds of ammo for my guns and some training and motivation. I don't need Bush for anything. The Lord is my helper and protector not Bush.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:35:48 GMT -5
Who would have thunk that lawman, of all people, would have correctly identified a real, live "neocon"? I'm proud of ya, law! Yes, William Kristol, senior editor of "The Weekly Standard" is a neocon. He freely admits it, as a matter of fact. I admit to being a bit curious though law. I'm going to guess that you have a rather negative opinion of the Weekly Standard. Do you have an equally negative opinion of "the Nation"? The author of the article you quote does, after all, say that: The Weekly Standard, like The Nation, is an example of advocacy journalism, a genre of journalism that allows the expression of opinion So in your opinion is it OK for the Left to engage in "advocacy journalism" and not the Right or are either or neither acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:38:44 GMT -5
Still proving that you have absolutely no idea of what a "neocon" is, solomon? Hey....you've got me convinced, so no need to tax yourself with further 'proof'. Just make sure that the folks you have cleaning your bunker high up in the mountains near Mentone are here legally. I don't want to have to send a tip to ICE on ya.....
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 28, 2007 20:40:48 GMT -5
Brandon.....How many times must I have to say it? WOMI is a Neocon......not a communist or socialist. He takes the worst of those groups' doctrines and tries to incorporate them into the Republican Party and maintain that he is "one of us". Its Neocon Brandon. Yeah well... however the "neocons" like to try and spruce up their name, any party that advocates big government spending and New Deal pharmeceutical programs seems pretty dang socialist to me.
|
|
|
Post by Twista on May 28, 2007 23:55:35 GMT -5
Yeah well... however the "neocons" like to try and spruce up their name, any party that advocates big government spending and New Deal pharmeceutical programs seems pretty dang socialist to me. It seems to me that it's not so much the party supporting any political ideals in this case, but an attempt at vote buying... The fact that it makes their big business supporters obscenely rich is just icing on the cake... LOL
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 9:52:28 GMT -5
I've made this point before.
However, because some people seem to have ratehr short- or possibly nonexistant- memories, I feel compelled to restate said point again, if only to correct the record.
The topic is, of course, government spending and the Bush Administration.
The facts show that Bush was a reasonably conservative (little "C") fiscal steward when it came to spending as governor of Texas. While he didn't manage to reduce spending, he did reduce the rate of growth of spending and he did cut taxes on the people of Texas (both Conservative principals).
When running for President, Bush did indeed espouse fiscal restraint. Not Newtonian (Gingrich) in scale or scope to be sure but he did advocate smaller government.
Upon his election, Bush inherited a recession from his predecessor. Actualy growth in the three quarters prior to Bush's inauguration- and that would be while Clinton and Gore still sullied the White House- were flat (once) and actually NEGATIVE (twice). According to economic theory, that constitutes a recession (no "consensus" needed!).
So right away Bush had to contend with a faltering economy.
Then of course came September 11th.
Estimates vary a bit, but economist believe the negative impact of the 9/11 attacks to our economy was roughly two TRILLION dollars, as measured in terms of direct losses of property, loss of the future earnings of those killed and of the companies they worked for and other related costs.
Now perhaps the recession might have been cured by the private sector and thus required to heavy-handed Federal intervention. I'll grant that likelihood.
However, add in 9/11 and ONLY the Federal government had the resources required to not only make good the losses but also to reassure investors both within and without the US that we would not only survive but thrive despite the setback. I'm not a proponent of big Federal programs- despite the (mis)information often spread here- but 9/11 could have been the impetus for a full-blown Depression had not the Bush Administration stepped in.
And, for the record, I can't accept the notion that the Medicare Drug Expansion had anything to do with recovery either from the Clinton-Gore recession or the 9/11 attacks.
Where did Bush and, by extention, Republicans, go wrong?
That one's easy to answer: they kept right on spending even after the recovery was completed. Republicans- though not the Conservatives (and there is a difference) became alarmingly similar to Democrats in their profligate spending. Bush's failure was that he, as nominal leader of the Party, didn't use his veto pen early and often to reject the increased spending. Had he sent the unmistakable message in, say, 2004 that we had pretty much recovered from the fiscal setbacks and thus no longer was there the need for unrestrained government spending and that he was prepared to veto bills that contained what he thought was excessive spending, the party would be dramatically better off than it is now (or is likely to be in the future).
That he didn't should be all the evidence anyone needs that Bush, while being a Republican, is >>NOT<< a Conservative.
Sadly, neither were much of the leadership in either chamber of Congress.
Bush and the Republican leadership (or at least much of it) in Congress fell into the old trap of "If some is good, more is better." If you, as a Republican, are spending money to the point that Democrats start being able to truthfully charge you with overspending, you're "off the reservation". Democrats are experts at overspending.
So what responsibility do Democrats deserve in all this?
Why, NONE.
When your opponent is doing a fine job of defeating himself, why step in and do anything to slow down the process?
Which is EXACTLY their campaign agenda was in 2006. And it all too obviously worked.
The real issue here is the deliberate attempt of a few here to paint all Republicans with a broad ideological brush, saying that all of us think, vote and believe alike. We're not. It's a neat, if disingenuous, rhetorical trick that often works of left unchallenged.
Trouble is...I challenge it on a regular basis. And by challenging and thendefeating it, correct the record.
One need look only at the Democrats to see a party wherein the only diversity that matters -that of opinion- is the only one they do not embrace.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 29, 2007 16:18:21 GMT -5
One need look only at the Democrats to see a party wherein the only diversity that matters -that of opinion- is the only one they do not embrace. Oh yes, the republicans are indeed openminded and respectful of others' opinion. Just look at the way they've attacked Ron Paul like wild dogs for having the audacity to have a differing opinion. When I look up through the entirety of your last post, I see the very thing of which this forum often accuses you. You're a Republican apologist. Granted, you're willing to admit that the republicans have dropped the ball on various occasions, but you always followup these concessions with, "But the Democrats would have been MUCH worse!" I believe that this is the reason that many people, like me, have grown very weary of talkshow hosts such as Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, and Lee Davis. No matter what kind of evil the Republican Party burdens upon the American People, these people will find some way to defend the Republicans. As a last resort to some issue that can't be defended, they always respond with, "But the Democrats would have been MUCH worse!" God willing, I think that more true conservatives will begin to side with libertarians. They're tired of hearing, "The Democrats are worse" everytime the republicans screw us.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 16:33:43 GMT -5
I don't doubt that you are tired of hearing "Democrats are worse".
Truth hurts, don't it?
In your rush to condemn Republicans for anything and everything, deserved or not, you're going to be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. Your "principaled vote" for Ron Paul will result in Hillary, with the co-operation of a virtually Marxist Democrat leadership in both Houses of Congress, dragging the United States farther to the Left than you've ever envisioned.
Actions have consequences. If your action (voting for Paul) almost certainly results in dire consequence (Hillary President), shouldn't you cast the most informed ballot you possibly can?
I understand that you are for totally isolating the US from countries abroad. How are you going to isolate yourself from Hillary? Answer that one.
As for tolerance of dissent, Republicans have nothing to apologize for.
Setting aside for the moment whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, look at the diverse positions on the issues put forth by Republican Presidential contenders. Contrast that with the lockstep opinions of the Democrats. Only the blind can fail to see the difference.
That is of course unless you think that diversity is only skin (color) deep....
|
|
|
Post by brandon on May 29, 2007 16:46:52 GMT -5
Actions have consequences. If your action (voting for Paul) almost certainly results in dire consequence (Hillary President), shouldn't you cast the most informed ballot you possibly can? It's absurd that you keep insisting that the rest of us vote for YOUR candidate or else face the consequences of a democrat in office. How about I insist that you instead vote for MY candidate and put him into office? If you don't put Ron Paul into office but instead vote for Rudy, then those of us that voted for Dr. Paul can surely blame the Rudy voters for putting Hillary into office, right? I think that the Republicans deserve to lose every single election for every single position until they get their lying heads out of their big-government asses and start supporting the Constitution. It would likely be better for Americans in the end if the democrats did gain control. What better way to finally kick off a revolution than by sinking into complete tyranny? It's better than being the metaphorical frog that is boiled to death slowly.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 18:41:31 GMT -5
brandon-
I don't demand that you vote for my candidates. Not my place to do so.
However, if the goal is to have the most informed electorate possible (which I advocate even if most politicians run from the possibility), then a major part of that process of being informed should be the consequences of your vote.
Sorry but history supports me on this one. Perot in 1992 led to Clinton (and, to be fair, if you're a Liberal, then Nader in 2000 gave us Bush).
By all means...go ahead and vote your conscience....
....and guarantee that Hillary becomes President.
Actions have consequences.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 31, 2007 0:41:36 GMT -5
No. No idea. So was your response not a joke? Only just now noticed this post........ Oh killer, you are refreshing in your innocence! Yes, of course it was a pretty good joke....least Twista and you said so!
|
|