Posted on 07/20/2003 5:29:31 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
AT THEIR national convention three years ago, Republicans pointed with pride to the GOP's record of fiscal rectitude.
''In the four decades from 1954 to 1994,'' the Republican platform declared, ''government spending increased at an average annual rate of 7.9 percent, and the public's debt increased from $224 billion to $3.4 trillion.'' Those were the profligate years, when Democrats usually controlled both houses of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Just to revise my remarks, you also couldn't find a demo Senate member with a good ACU rating.
And somewhere out there on the Net is the real dope on exactly WHO are the "subsidized farmers."
Bet old Archer-Daniels-Midland is in the Top Five...
Now THERE'S a sympathetic figure!
Bet old Archer-Daniels-Midland is in the Top Five...
Now THERE'S a sympathetic figure!
Sheesh, you are on a real tear in your mind aren't you.
Oh well carry on with your paleo-con(Buchanan worshipping) rant.
1. I said that you and others of your ilk are appeasers, because we are actually fighting a culture war, which as John Fonte so eloquently pointed out, is Gramsci vs. Tocqueville in America. By allowing Bush to stray from our side (which is a REAL stretch, since I think he's actually part of the other side, truth be told) without consequence (in fact, with your active support), you are an enemy appeaser. Plain and simple. Your response? No, you are.
2. You then said that Bush is 100 times better than any Democrat. I pointed out that there were many Democrats with better ACU scores than a lot of Republicans (including my RINO Congresscritter and John McCain), so Bush wasn't 100 times better than ANY DEMOCRAT. You told me I was parsing, and your real argument came to the surface, which is At least Bush is a Republican, not a Democrat.
Every time I have tried to engage in a debate, you start pontificating and accusing me of throwing a tantrum.
The truth is not a tantrum, my friend.
DOn't count on it. Dick Viguerie, who was 100% correct about Reagan's disastrous nomination of "Sodomy Sadie" O'Connor, has also predicted that Bush's first Supreme nomination will be just as bad.
Please see the NewsMax site of last Thursday or Friday...
Actually, I didn't look. And I wasn't only looking for a 'good' rating...I was looking for a 70 plus rating, which ACU considers a 'real' conservative. McStain didn't make it this year, and all the RINOs in my state NEVER make it.
I will let "lurkers", and not e-mailed supporters of your point of view, on FR determine that.
That's all I am going to say. Post away and hang yourself publicly. Knock yourself out with your DNC fueled Bush bashing.
Did the dog's coat need cleaning, too???
Now you're getting incoherent. What does THAT mean?
Still waiting for some refutation of the FACTS, rather than ramblings and references to my being a member of the DNC, which is absolutely ludicrous. In fact, when Dick Cheney visited my state during the campaign I was seated on the dias behind Mrs. Cheney (who is actually smaller in person, as is Mr. Cheney). I have been invited to many fundraisers (will no longer attend), and have been a member of the Republican party since I was the youngest member of my Town Committee in history when I was 17 (they made a special exception to the rules for my election).
I'm the kind of conservative the party is losing, and you're the kind of conservative they're picking up. What does that say for the party?
Telling the truth ought not be a problem for you, and Bush is simply spending money like it's water (assisted by the Congress.)
If you have a problem with the truth, you REALLY have a problem with conservatism
No problem with the truth.
Just a question about your "truth".
Who would rather have as President, Bush or one of the nine demos.
And no going off on a tangent from reality saying a third party candidate, because a third party candidate hasn't won in more than a century.
I know you hate the reality, but it is reality and I am in no way sorry for dragging your screaming and kicking being into modern American political reality.
Are you sure you've read all of his posts?
I agree. But it looks like the 'real Conservatives' are being rolled on the domestic and spending issues.
Congress and the administration have been lately willing to go along with vast increases in Federal spending: A farm bill here, more Federal education spending, a prescription drug benefit there and a whole new department for homeland security. Spending is increasing faster now than under Clinton and the Republican Congress of the mid-1990s.
If you were in a cave for 3 years since nov 7, 2000, didn't know who won the last 2 elections, and were told these facts you would have to come ot the conclusion that the LIBERALS WON the 2000 and 2002 elections - BECAUSE THEIR POLICIES ARE BEING ENACTED.
That's JMHO. We have a GOP Congress and the Presidency ... what the h*ll is the need for enacting Liberal policies and Liberal spending priorities ?!???!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.