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]
The balance of your argument seems to be that if you wait, the grand design will emerge, and all this spending will ... gee, I'm not sure what you think will happen to all this spending.
Because if there is one fact in Washington, it is this: No spending program is ever removed without an act of G-d.
So, we will have these vast new spending programs, in perpetuity. Please explain to me how this is even remotely conservative.
Let's get something straight here. I am with you in your views of smaller government, personal responsibility,.....The problem is you don't understand what the argument is about as most of you who want this type of goverment.
We live in a day and age of selfishness and "what have you done for me lately." You can't go into this Gov't and starting slashing and burning without repercussions. If you think you can then watch the next 12 years be handed over to the likes of Hillary.
Now you and I both know that we don't want that, but that is exactly what we will get, because your ideas, eventhough I agree with them are not consistant with the thought of the nation as a whole right now.
Bush, I believe, has some what of an idea of how to deal with this problem so conservatives can stay in power and incrementally change things. You just can do this in today's world with the ever expanding left leaning in this country, because whether you like it or not republicans won't go to the polls and vote!! The only reason Bush was elected in the first place was not because of his ideas, it was because people didn't want another Clinton!
Now, do you see the what the argument HAS TO revolve around?
This world is going to get worse in it's selfishness. It is about changing the hearts and minds of people, and that's not going to happen by rampage slash and burn, even a little.
Why do you think Bush has this Comp. Cons. thing. Because it resonates with the openminded moderate, enough that there might be a change of heart even from the liberals.
I agree that Bush is spending too much, but I think it is part of a bigger picture that brings us more conservatism.
The point is that it is not conservative, but tax cuts are!
The balance of your argument seems to be that if you wait, the grand design will emerge,...
In the scheme of things, yes, that is my argument. I don't think for one second Bush is finished. However, I do think that whatever plan he has is on the backburner to the WOT.
I'm saying we're arguing about two things here because I can not deny you are right in your assessment that this kind of spending is socialistic as a hole, but that is only one aspect of the whole argument.
Looking at W's past record (Texas and as President) there isn't going to be any magical turning over of leaves and revelation of this great Conservative strategy.
In fact, if this is the way that he is going to 'save' Conservatism it sounds like he's burning down the forest to save the trees.
Also, what does CFR have to do with the grand strategy? Holding back on the diversity stuff? C'mon, it's too complicated a theory.
You will never be satisfied because it just is not ever going to happen the way you want it too. You are arguing against pricipalities and a selfish society today.
There will be more conservativism.
There will always be conservatism...it will just be meaningless because it has been allowed to be watered down by people like W (and you).
And as for your prattle about how our self-centered society won't accept 'real' conservatism, leadership is about having a vision and convincing those who oppose you to get on board. The Bush administration shows absolutely no leadership in advancing even the most minute conservative value.
Lastly, TAX CUTS BY THEMSELVES ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE PANACEA. Tax cuts without fiscal discipline are a train wreck, which is what W has set up.
In the scheme of things, yes, that is my argument. I don't think for one second Bush is finished. However, I do think that whatever plan he has is on the backburner to the WOT.
Could you forgive us if we wanted something more solid to go on than your psychic abilities?
A fatass chick and some knee pads is all I can see different in that regard.
For many, A President can do everything you are against as longs as he is a Republican and doesn't cause stained blue dresses.
Are you serious, are just plain living in fantasy land? There has never been a pure conservative stronghold in anything we do in this nation. Leadership like Reagan's had to be scrapped for every inch of the way. Do you really not realize that society is getting more depraved, more lost, more selfish? Are you in denial?
The Bush administration shows absolutely no leadership in advancing even the most minute conservative value.
If you don't like Bush then next time go vote for whoever you think would be better. You won't find anyone out there who is electable who will fill YOUR bill and I think that's what pisses you off the most.
I'm sorry you're so angy at Bush, but if there is nothing you can do but bitch and moan about him not being conservative enough for YOU go live somewhere else!
If you will forgive me for telling everyone that I think Bush is the only choice for us who are conservative, that can win the next election.
But if we just keep sweeping his transgressions under the rug, it seems pretty clear that we'll just keep getting more of the same. What incentive would he and his benefactors have to change their course?
First and foremost his term is not over! There is not a thing wrong with people pointing out Bush's horrible spending habits. Attention should be brought to this subject but not in this, "I'm going to take my ball go home" kind of manner. From every indication Bush is not fiscally conservative and that sux, but he is not thru yet and he did give us tax cuts, so he is not totally off the reservation.
All I am saying is that Bush's liberal money burning is not enough yet to make me willing to give up on him so a dem can be elected.
Are you willing for this to happen?
Are you willing for this to happen?
Let me just say that I don't consider it an unacceptable risk, given that Democrats have been more fiscally conservative than he has. I'm not pushing for this to happen, but it's a worthy enough risk to take, if the potential benefit is that either he'll change his ways, or a conservative will take his place.
Consider further that it really doesn't seem too likely that a Democrat will defeat him this time around, seeing as how the public is more inclined to trust a Republican to fight the War on Terror. This gives us a rare opportunity to make our displeasure known with comparatively little risk.
Did you ever stop to think that the fact that society is getting 'more depraved, more lost and more selfish' is the EFFECT of a leadership vacuum, not the cause of it?
You ended the debate as most Bushbots do (facing the lack of a credible argument for their appeasement of the enemy), with 'he's better than a Democrat' and 'leave the country if you don't like it,' the two greatest Bushbot arguments.
Both are red herrings. You, my friend, are the reason we are in this predicament -- you and the rest of the doormats in this party who believe that becoming more like those we loathe will somehow free us from them, which is illogical and ludicrous.
And yes, it does 'piss me off' that the Republican party is made up of RINOs, sissies and appeasers (guess which one you are), but not as much as the fact that you let it happen and continue to defend it.
As far as your last comment goes, I do have a backup plan, and it does involve my leaving the country. So I'm covered. What are YOU going to do?
Vote for Bush, again!!
Well, I guess you pissed farther than I did.
Tell me again, what Dem, who we all know all are obviously more fiscally conservative than Bush, are you going to vote for in 2004?
hmmmmmm?
The bold is more likely, the rest is like a snowball's chance of survival in hell.
This gives us a rare opportunity to make our displeasure known with comparatively little risk.
No problems with that...but don't end up firing the dude just to replace him with the likes of ole Joe Lieberman.
One more time: the fact that there is no one 'more conservative' out there doesn't change the fact that W sucks.
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.