AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

wrong foxy.... there is only one kind of tax.

the kind that is paid. as i said to ican, the constitution simply says that the government is allowed to collect taxes from you and is not required to ask you if it's okay to spend the money on this or that. and without numeration or census.

and because the legislature caved into right wing pressure about taxes, yet again, they have had to cut shifts and instituted mandatory closing of stations one day a week.

and now here we are.
---

yup we can see the la canada stuff from the house. it's still way, way off. but my concern is that we live with the same kind of hill and dead foliage at the top of our dead end street. and we are starting to find ashes and embers down here as the fires grow (heh, the last time that happened was the riots) . so if our hills go... ehh, it's gonna get ugly, as they say.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think you're looking at it through partisan blinders.

That's a false assumption that you made a long time ago and your own partisan blinders prevent you from recognizing that it's false. You assumed that anyone who criticized Bush must have been a Democrat or a dirty liberal. I've never had a party affiliation and I never will. I never thought there was a difference between the two but your man showed me otherwise.

You weren't shouting from the rooftops -- you were caveating and making excuses. You certainly weren't drawing parallels to the way he was consolidating power to that of Hitler or Stalin or whoever the boogeyman of the day is. You weren't clamoring for his or his party's removal and in fact supported that exact same party in the next election.

The fact that you helped put the previous president and his party in power, despite clear and obvious evidence that he wasn't the man for the job, and made excuses for him while he brought this country to its knees and left this mess for his successor means that you owe this president at least the benefit of the doubt. No president has ever inherited as big a mess. No Bush doesn't give Obama a pass. But you and others who spent the last eight years ignoring red flags -- even accusing those waving them of waving white ones in their stead -- have no credibility to raise any flags now.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Hudgins in his article I previously posted was not excusing his own greed for an effective education for everyone's children. He was advocating it.

Hudgins didn't write this, but I will. ...
Your response is collectivist puke concealing one's own envy. Collectivists are sick from their resentment of those who aspire to better for themselves and their children. Worse, they are hateful of those who oppose the collectivist's pursuit of equality of results rather than maximization of each individual's opportunity.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

very well stated.

(but she will tell you why you are wrong and she is not very shortly, I promise...)

0 Replies

As bad as Bush was, Obama has already demonstrated he is far worse. It took us less than 6 years to recognize Bush's dangerous flaws. It's taken us less than only 6 months to recognize Obama's horrendously dangerous flaws.

Worse, Obama is emulating and amplifying Bush's worst flaws all the while he criticizes them. That's nuts!

And you think Gore and Kerry were better choices for president than was Bush. They were obviously far worse choices.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

How exactly is "Obama's horrendously dangerous flaws" exposed?

Please spell it out rather than using ad hominems and generalities.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

The federal government is not granted the power by the constitution to give away one's taxes to persons who do not earn them. Therefore, it is unlawful for the federal governement to give away one's taxes to persons who do not earn them.

If the Constitution does not say the federal government can do a thing, then the federal government cannot lawfully do that thing. Wise up to this fact by studying the 10th Amendment.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think you're looking at it through partisan blinders.

That's a false assumption that you made a long time ago and your own partisan blinders prevent you from recognizing that it's false. You assumed that anyone who criticized Bush must have been a Democrat or a dirty liberal. I've never had a party affiliation and I never will. I never thought there was a difference between the two but your man showed me otherwise.

I and many others criticized Bush and I was neither a Democrat nor a dirty liberal (your term not mine) or any other kind of liberal as it is defined in America these days. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a party partisan, but partisan you were nevertheless because I cannot recall a time in which you defended President Bush or any Bush policy and I'm not seeing much criticism of President Obama from you.

Yes I defended President Bush when I thought he was right or was falsely accused just as I defended President Clinton when I thought he was right or falsely accused and just as I have defended President Obama when he was right or falsely accused. And I have criticized all three when I thought they were wrong. Can you say the same as you self-righteously claim to be less partisan than me?

Quote:

You weren't shouting from the rooftops -- you were caveating and making excuses. You certainly weren't drawing parallels to the way he was consolidating power to that of Hitler or Stalin or whoever the boogeyman of the day is. You weren't clamoring for his or his party's removal and in fact supported that exact same party in the next election.

President Bush wasn't consolidating power except in the realm of national security which 90+% of Americans thought appropriate in the wake of 9/11. Otherwise he was being quite divisive and weakening his position in areas that I thought he should have been standing strong (i.e. global warming, illegal immigration, control of the nation's ports, etc.)

When I thought him unjustly accused by you or others, I absolutely did defend him--what you call 'making excuses'. And I did so by defending his position. You seem to defend your guy by attacking and accusing his critics. I have not been clamoring for Obama's removal other than through the elective process, nor are most conservatives clamoring for his removal other than through the elective process. Do you dare tell me that none on your side were clamoring for George Bush's impeachment?

Believe me, had we had any other option than the Democratic Party, I would not have supported the GOP in the last election. But unfortunately the GOP and Democrats were the only viable options we had.

Another thing I try not to do is misrepresent what people say or what they draw parallels to. You could take lessons from me in that regard.

Quote:

The fact that you helped put the previous president and his party in power, despite clear and obvious evidence that he wasn't the man for the job, and made excuses for him while he brought this country to its knees and left this mess for his successor means that you owe this president at least the benefit of the doubt. No president has ever inherited as big a mess. No Bush doesn't give Obama a pass. But you and others who spent the last eight years ignoring red flags -- even accusing those waving them of waving white ones in their stead -- have no credibility to raise any flags now.

In 2000 I believe George W. Bush was the man for the job. He certainly brought as solid credentials as anybody else running. In 2004, purely because we were so soon after 9/11 and because of his exemplary job in maintaining national security, and because the Democrats offered such a pathetic alternative, yes I did vote for President Bush again in 2004.

I would be cheering President Obama on and giving him 100% support if he was dealing with the mess he inherited in any kind of reasonable way. Because he is not, I will not support policies and actions that I believe to be wrong, counter productive, destructive, and making a bad situation far worse.

If you disapprove of that, you're just going to have to sue me even as your pat yourself on the back for holding such superior insights and being blessed with so little prejudice.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How exactly is "Obama's horrendously dangerous flaws" exposed?

By his Stimulus Plan.
By his trillion dollar a year past and projected deficits.
By his advocacy of wealth transfer by the federal government.
By his almost daily contradictions of what he previously claimed to be true.
By his choice of unapproved by Congress "csars" to fill his administrative staff.
...

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't care who introduced the bill ehBeth. I am as critical of a Republican who pushes unacceptably intrusive government as much as I am critical of a Democrat. More so even because a Republican is expected to know better.

I see. It sure explains why you were so conspicuously skeptical when President Bush pushed for invading Iraq, for the Patriot Act, against Congressional and judicial oversight of executive power, and all those other measures that made the US government more intrusive over the past eight years.

Your skepticism of those Bush policies is sure paying off now. It lends so much credibility to your critique of the Obama administration.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

wrong foxy.... there is only one kind of tax.

the kind that is paid. as i said to ican, the constitution simply says that the government is allowed to collect taxes from you and is not required to ask you if it's okay to spend the money on this or that. and without numeration or census.

and because the legislature caved into right wing pressure about taxes, yet again, they have had to cut shifts and instituted mandatory closing of stations one day a week.

and now here we are.
---

yup we can see the la canada stuff from the house. it's still way, way off. but my concern is that we live with the same kind of hill and dead foliage at the top of our dead end street. and we are starting to find ashes and embers down here as the fires grow (heh, the last time that happened was the riots) . so if our hills go... ehh, it's gonna get ugly, as they say.

Fires like that are always ugly no matter where they are. We've got one burning southeast of Albuquerque that they can't really get into ang fight because it was once a bombing range and there's unexploded ordinance all over the place.

I don't know what the circumstances are with your local elected leaders and taxes, but I do know that employers representing tens of thousands of California jobs are fleeing the state to escape ever higher taxes and threats of more taxes. And believe me it must be pretty serious for people to leave the paradises they are leaving in California in order to move to the really ugly and inhospitable Nevada desert et al.

But there's a trade off for just about everything. Do you raise taxes again and drive more jobs out of state when your unemployment rate is already one of the highest in the nation at 11.9%? This also substantially shrinks the tax base putting additional pressure on those who are left.

Or do you rethink the non essential costs for everything from formulation of fuels to environmental controls to union policy etc. so that you can set aside the stuff that isn't absolutely critical, prioritize the stuff you care about to keep the best and set aside the rest, focus on what you can't do without, lower costs, bring down taxes and mandatory costs of doing business, and start luring employers back into the state?

And there are many kinds of taxes. We've discussed most of them at some time or another on this thread. Some are necessary. And some aren't. Some are beneficial. And some are counter productive. Some are imposed specificially to discourage certain kinds of activities. Some raise revenues better than others. All Americans should be paying their fair share of them, but no more than is absolutely necessary. Other than those government fuctions that are absolutely necessary to secure our liberties and quality of life, all of us are much more likely to spend our money to better benefit than any government will spend it for us.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

More so even because a Republican is expected to know better.

ROFLMAO I would sure like to see Foxie produce any criticism of her's of the Bush "intrusive government" actions. Even one would be worth an apology, and two would be a miracle.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There is no way in hell that the study re pigeons could be justified as necessary or applicable to the general welfare

Says you. Congress disagrees. And a long line of constitutional interpretation, going back all the way to Alexander Hamilton, says that Congress has the last word on these things -- not you.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't care who introduced the bill ehBeth. I am as critical of a Republican who pushes unacceptably intrusive government as much as I am critical of a Democrat. More so even because a Republican is expected to know better.

I see. It sure explains why you were so conspicuously skeptical when President Bush pushed for invading Iraq, for the Patriot Act, against Congressional and judicial oversight of executive power, and all those other measures that made the US government more intrusive over the past eight years.

Your skepticism of those Bush policies is sure paying off now. It lends so much credibility to your critique of the Obama administration.

I trusted a passionate bipartisan debate and vote, one that allowed amendments from both sides of the aisle, to do the right thing re Iraq. Was I uncertain? Absolutely. I didn't want us to do it. But was I sure it was the wrong thing to do? No I was not. And I was not going to hamstring with negative publicity my friends, loved ones, and all the other brave men and women who were going into harm's way.

I supported the Patriot Act and continue to support most of it as necessary to secure our liberties. So do most of the members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, or they would have eliminated or defunded it by now.

I have not seen lack of judicial oversight of the government during the Bush administration. If anything the judiciary was a thorn in their side during most of it.

I did not see a great deal of intrusiveness in the way of mandates or restrictions or interference with me, my means of making a living, or my freedoms during the Bush administration. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you mean about that?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is no way in hell that the study re pigeons could be justified as necessary or applicable to the general welfare

Says you. Congress disagrees. And a long line of constitutional interpretation, going back all the way to Alexander Hamilton, says that Congress has the last word on these things -- not you.

So it is appropriate to complain about what you don't like that the government is doing but not me?

At least I can give specific reasons for what I don't like and why I don't like it while you seem to deal in generalized talking points.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

At least I can give specific reasons for what I don't like and why I don't like it while you seem to deal in generalized talking points.

Can you show us ONE specific reason you didn't like what Bush did?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So it is appropriate to complain about what you don't like that the government is doing but not me?

No, and I don't see how you get that from what I said.

As a matter of policy, we can both complain all we want. But as a matter of constitutionality, Congress's judgment supersedes ours in both matters. And it's a good thing, too.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

No, here in America is is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and the people have the right to hold the Congress accountable for its actions. Congress does not get to determine what is and is not constitutional--that is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court. Congress can change the Constitution only with consent of a super majority of the people and every member of Congress, as well as the President, swears a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. A Congressperson's judgment does not supercede anybody else's as to what is and is not constitutional.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Deny deny deny. Divert, obfusicate, accuse, blame, change the subject, use ad hominem or direct insults often, and then deny some more. Ask endless question after question but avoid answering questions as much as possible. Don't articulate a reasoned rebuttal or back up your opinion with any serious history or credible sources. Insult. Blame. Divert. Deny. Deny. Deny.

I will say that you have the Daily Kos play book down pat.

Besides the above being an ad hominem in itself, your play book is simple if not all of the above plus being dishonest. You're really ******* dishonest.

If you could muster some dignity to admit when you're wrong, especially when it's actively brought to your attention, what you say here might be worth something.

Instead, people here are endlessly patient with your moving of goal posts, and redefinitions. It's not that you love the conservative or republican mindset, it's that you're in love with yourself. Your ego has no equal here.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

"We can hold congress accountable?" ROFLMAO

Is that why most congress members are able to spend so many years in Washington DC - making it a career that sometimes lasts longer than civilian employment? Thurman, Bird, Ted Kennedy....

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know