Bush begins to lose support amongst conservative core

[bhsup]

Name a conservative Democrat. Not a conservative-leaning Democrat who is still liberal, but an actualy conservative Democrat.

Sam Nunn, but he's long retired.

 

[The Yankee]

I agree we are spending too much too. But the Democrats have blocked every attempt to get rid of all the unnecessary pork spending like health care, social security and free needles for drug users.

You do realize that the Democrats aren't in control of anything right now, right? And some of the huge pork projects have been advocated by Republicans, such as Ted Stevens and Don Young?

Still, if you think we're spending too much, then why are you defending it as an "investment" when clearly, most of the deficits are not for "investments"?

You see...you will think that Social Security is selfish because it forces the next generation to pay. The dollars brought in the present do go to current retirees...but, if it worked correctly, the only time someone got Social Security money without contributing at all was a retiree when it started, which were few and far between, as the retirement age for the program was a couple of years higher than the life expectancy rate.

But, instead of contributing now to gain something later, these debts are gaining things now and pushing it off to you and me to pay in taxes later on, or decreased spending in vital areas. Republicans used to advocate for it, but that was before they had the keys to the cookie jar.

You tell me which setup is selfish.

 

[Red Stranger]

You people kept saying that the Democrats aren't in power. But look around, we still have crap programs like social security (aka take money from hard working Americans and give it to lazy potheads), medicare, and liberal arts schools (WTH).

To Yankee:
I called some parts of the spending "investments." They are new spendings that must be spent. But old, outdated pork spending must be cut.

 

[Uiler]

You people kept saying that the Democrats aren't in power. But look around, we still have crap programs like social security (aka take money from hard working Americans and give it to lazy potheads), medicare, and liberal arts schools (WTH).

To Yankee:
I called some parts of the spending "investments." They are new spendings that must be spent. But old, outdated pork spending must be cut.

Hah, hah. I'd like to point out the latest addition to the Medicare program was pushed by the GOP. The Democrats are even using it to attack Bush. The GOP of today is not the GOP of the past. Times change.

You keep on saying the Democrats are still in power. How can they possibly be in power when they haven't controlled either house of Congress for the last dozen years, and haven't controlled the Presidency for the last 6? I would like you to explain the exact mechanism by which the Democrats control Congress and the Presidency. Please explain. Mind control? Space aliens? The classic conspiracy about the elders of Zion? What? Have they replaced every GOP congressman and Bush by robots which they secretly control from an underground bunker? Let's put it in simple maths:

From Wikipedia:

The current composition of Congress:

House of Represenatives:

GOP: 231
Democrats: 201
Independent: 1
Seats Vacant: 2

Senate:

GOP: 55
Democrats: 44
Independent: 1

All the laws of mathematics I know say that 231 > 201 and 55 > 44. A great deal more actually (15% and 25% more respectively). They're not exactly razor thin majorities here. And the last time I looked the vast majority of voting in Congress (with a few exceptions like the filibuster) went on simple majorities. That is, 51% of the vote will push the bill through. Maybe maths in your world behaves differently from maths in my world.

Looking at the historic 1994 midterm elections:

House of Represenatives:

GOP: 230
Democrats: 204
Independent: 1

So it's been that way for the last 12 years. That is for the last 12 years, the GOP has had on average 1/5 more seats in Congress than the Democrats.

As for the Presidency, the last time I looked Bush was a Republican. Maybe in your own world, Bush is a Democrat, but I'm sure every other person in this forum will agree with me that Bush is a Republican.

We could have a poll on this if you like.

 

[FriendlyFire]

You people kept saying that the Democrats aren't in power. But look around, we still have crap programs like social security (aka take money from hard working Americans and give it to lazy potheads), medicare, and liberal arts schools (WTH).

So the democrats ARE in power ?
So whos responsible for invading Iraq, Afganistain ? Passing Huge tax cuts for the Rich ? Driving up the deficet ? Pushing spending on Missle defence ?

me = WTH ?

 

[pboily]

medicare, and liberal arts schools (WTH).

liberal art school = schools to learn how to become an american liberal

hahahahahahahahhaha

"Liberal arts education" or "liberal learning" has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics; rather, the phrases connote the liberation of the individual (through education) from ignorance or superstition.

You truly are something else, RS.

 

[Phlegmak]

You factinistas need to realize Red Stranger's position: reality has a liberal bias. Therefore, reality can't be trusted.

 

[eyrei]

"Liberal arts education" or "liberal learning" has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics; rather, the phrases connote the liberation of the individual (through education) from ignorance or superstition.

Actually, for once I agree with you. Those who study the liberal arts are also less susceptible to propaganda (though not immune to it), advertising, dogma, etc by way of the critical thinking skills obtained. The reason most people with a 'liberal arts' education are not republicans is that that party uses more rhetoric and propaganda, which often is insufficient to convince a person whose mind is trained to ask questions. It is not that they are training programs for liberals...that is just a side effect.

 

[pboily]

Actually, for once I agree with you.

For once? I don't remember us ever disagreeing (or being in a discussion together, for that matter...)

 

[eyrei]

For once? I don't remember us ever disagreeing (or being in a discussion together, for that matter...)

Oops. I thought that was a quote from RedStranger, and that would have been a first.

 

[Commie #4522]

You factinistas need to realize Red Stranger's position: reality has a liberal bias. Therefore, reality can't be trusted.

Haha u got taht right buddy.

 

[VoodooAce]

You people kept saying that the Democrats aren't in power.

That's because its true and some people just can't seem to process that fact, no matter how many times their told. Some people just aren't interested in things like 'facts' and 'truth' because they see them as obstacles on the road to rhetoricville.

In another thread, RS, you brought up the subject of animals and a lot of the discussion centered on the difference between tactics and instinct. Blaming dems for anything that goes wrong has long been a republican tactic. But its clear that, in your case, its purely instinct as actual thought into the matter never seems to enter the equation. Facts and truth be damned.

 

[nihilistic]

You people kept saying that the Democrats aren't in power. But look around, we still have crap programs like social security (aka take money from hard working Americans and give it to lazy potheads), medicare,

So the premises are:
1. Republicans hold commanding majorities in both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and a good majority of court.
2. Debt spiraling out of control.

And your conclusion is:
The democrats are in power?

So in your mind, you refused to process the obvious line of reasoning that maybe the republicans spend too, and instead chose to simply ignore the reality and go on chanting your bullcrap anyway? So for you, idealogy > reality? That's pathetic. I bet if you were born somewhere in the mideast you'd be one of those losers cheering the terrorists on too.

and liberal arts schools (WTH).

Argument by word association? Although nothing you've posted on this forum seemed to convey even a miniscule bit of insight, this has got to be another low.

 

[Red Stranger]

Power is not absolute. It's not that you either have it all or nothing. The Democrats don't have all the power, but they do have enough to keep wasting government money on socialist programs.

 

[.Shane.]

Actually, for once I agree with you. Those who study the liberal arts are also less susceptible to propaganda (though not immune to it), advertising, dogma, etc by way of the critical thinking skills obtained. The reason most people with a 'liberal arts' education are not republicans is that that party uses more rhetoric and propaganda, which often is insufficient to convince a person whose mind is trained to ask questions. It is not that they are training programs for liberals...that is just a side effect.

Right. Its like the difference between democrat and Democrat. You can be for democracy and not be a Democrat.

pboily, did you quote that for irony?

 

[eyrei]

Power is not absolute. It's not that you either have it all or nothing. The Democrats don't have all the power, but they do have enough to keep wasting government money on socialist programs.

Care to point out which programs are 'socialist'?

 

[Red Stranger]

*social security.
*Public Transportation. (It's grossly inefficient to have a hugh 40 passenger bus going around driving 5 people at night).
*Urban projects.
*Unemployment

 

[nihilistic]

Public Transportation. (It's grossly inefficient to have a hugh 40 passenger bus going around driving 5 people at night).

LMAO do you live in the middle of nowhere? Maybe where you live public transpotation is pointless, but in cities like NYC there is no other way to do it.

 

[eyrei]

*social security.
*Public Transportation. (It's grossly inefficient to have a hugh 40 passenger bus going around driving 5 people at night).
*Urban projects.
*Unemployment

I see.

So what do we do with people who don't manage to save enough money before they are forced to retire? Let them rot?

Public transportation is far more efficient than everyone driving their own vehicle, which will become increasingly important in the decades to come.

I have no idea what you mean by 'urban projects'. All that tells me is that they are 'projects' that take place in an 'urban' area, which could be nearly anything.

I'm guessing you are referring to unemployment insurance rather than unemployment. Without it, when a company was forced to layoff a large number of people, the economy of an entire area could be shattered, not to mention the well-being of the families involved. I don't think I have ever seen a politician foolish enough to seriously try to do away with this program. In fact, President Bush extended unemployment benefits to a year rather than six months in the economic crisis after 9/11. Such a safety net provides stability to our economy, and is neither a pet project of the republicans or democrats. It is simply common sense.

 

[downtown]

Did Red Stranger just say that Liberal Arts colleges are the work of the democrats?

Hey Red! I know a university that has all sorts of liberal arts degrees? Know what it is?


HARVARD