+1 If we have to have republicans in office then I would rather them be fiscal conservatives also. The far right cut taxes for the rich, give tax breaks to companies that don't need them, cut some very important programs to finance the tax cuts and in the process they increase the deficit. The far left increase taxes, especially for the rich, and give the money to programs that are ineffective. Neither side has it right, but IMO the left do a little better, at least some of the money goes to people who need it and they tend to work towards balancing the budget. Bush has been bad in many ways, the budget is just another place he failed.
BTW: I'm not really partisan, I don't really care for either side. The two party system sucks.
_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marijuana.
-Gun control kills!
bigj: the answer isn't more parties... it's no parties at all.
Agustin: Sadly, the "republicans" in power are Neo-Cons... they'd be called Neo-Libs if they swung for the other side. Either way, we've got them in Canadia too in the CRAP
At least we can make fun of them without being called unpatriotic, hell at least they have a sense of humor about it all too
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^ I agree, that's why I said the 2 party system sucks.
_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marijuana.
-Gun control kills!
The problem with this is that I'm not sure if Conservatives in the press are saying these things because they mean it and believe in it, or because the Clintons (and their buddies) paid them to do so in order for the Democrats to win in 2006 and 2008.
Jeremy Knox wrote:The problem with this is that I'm not sure if Conservatives in the press are saying these things because they mean it and believe in it, or because the Clintons (and their buddies) paid them to do so in order for the Democrats to win in 2006 and 2008.
You think the Clintons are behind guys like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan saying they are unhappy with current conservative fiscal policy?
---
Ut oh... another round-earth conspirator!
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
AGuSTiN wrote:Jeremy Knox wrote:The problem with this is that I'm not sure if Conservatives in the press are saying these things because they mean it and believe in it, or because the Clintons (and their buddies) paid them to do so in order for the Democrats to win in 2006 and 2008.
You think the Clintons are behind guys like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan saying they are unhappy with current conservative fiscal policy?
Joe yes, Pat maybe (but probably not). It's just like the Republicans are paying off people like Rush Limbaugh to back them up. Party affiliation and ideology becomes meaningless when money and power are involved. In fact, I highly doubt that the Democrats or Republicans are all that different now. They're both being paid off by the same groups of business interests anyway; and from what I can tell they're both working on the "Hot Potato" system. One party side runs things for 2 terms (or until they've got the whole country wanting their blood) and then the other party gets a crack at it. Like in 2008 when the Democrats win they'll say that they didn't cause all the problems that the country's facing, while the Republicans will be able to say that the Democrats are making it worse. Nobody's responsible and no one suggests actually doing anything except use the problems as levers to get more votes. It's a clever system, it gives the illusion of change without really doing anything.
Somehow I really doubt Buchanan would give a grain of sand to help the Clintons. I really, really doubt it when you look at his track record. Cons are unhappy with the current fiscal policy because it is anything but conservative. Yes, conservatives tend to have larger military bugets, but this is out of control, something usually reserved for Democrats
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:Somehow I really doubt Buchanan would give a grain of sand to help the Clintons. I really, really doubt it when you look at his track record. Cons are unhappy with the current fiscal policy because it is anything but conservative. Yes, conservatives tend to have larger military bugets, but this is out of control, something usually reserved for Democrats
PAX
The Clintons aren't the Democratic party. They're just the figureheads. Same with the Republicans. Bush isn't totally running the show. Also, I doubt we'll ever see a return to a conservative budget. It's sort of like how movies in Hollywood are all worth 100 million each now when you could easily make the exact same movie for about 20. The difference is that with 20 million you can't squander a penny and with 100 million a lot of stupid crap can be bought like a new Viper for the producer so he can get to and from the set, or a boob job for the star's wife, or a trip to Tahiti to do "reshoots", ect... The same premise applies to politics, the more money you throw around, the easier it is to spend some of it on useless "personal" crap, or for it to go missing altogether. If 100,000$ dissapears from a million dollars, people ask uncomfortable questions; but if the same amount goes mission from a hundred million, nobody notices.
Jeremy Knox wrote:Joe yes, Pat maybe (but probably not). It's just like the Republicans are paying off people like Rush Limbaugh to back them up. Party affiliation and ideology becomes meaningless when money and power are involved. In fact, I highly doubt that the Democrats or Republicans are all that different now. They're both being paid off by the same groups of business interests anyway; and from what I can tell they're both working on the "Hot Potato" system. One party side runs things for 2 terms (or until they've got the whole country wanting their blood) and then the other party gets a crack at it. Like in 2008 when the Democrats win they'll say that they didn't cause all the problems that the country's facing, while the Republicans will be able to say that the Democrats are making it worse. Nobody's responsible and no one suggests actually doing anything except use the problems as levers to get more votes. It's a clever system, it gives the illusion of change without really doing anything.
Considering your other thread about "Conspiracy Theorists get on my nerves", you're a funny guy.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:
Considering your other thread about "Conspiracy Theorists get on my nerves", you're a funny guy.
There's a huge difference in believing that the US government killed thousands of people by destroying the WTC for seemingly no good reason at all, and believing that governments in general are corrupt manipulators who steal from the people any chance they get.
Jeremy Knox wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:
Considering your other thread about "Conspiracy Theorists get on my nerves", you're a funny guy.
There's a huge difference in believing that the US government killed thousands of people by destroying the WTC for seemingly no good reason at all, and believing that governments in general are corrupt manipulators who steal from the people any chance they get.
You don't think a government of corrupt manipulators wouldn't also kill their own? You *ARE* a funny guy!
---
AGuSTiN wrote:Jeremy Knox wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:
Considering your other thread about "Conspiracy Theorists get on my nerves", you're a funny guy.
There's a huge difference in believing that the US government killed thousands of people by destroying the WTC for seemingly no good reason at all, and believing that governments in general are corrupt manipulators who steal from the people any chance they get.
You don't think a government of corrupt manipulators wouldn't also kill their own? You *ARE* a funny guy!
Not in their own country and not for no reason. Where was the profit of 9/11? What was the advantage for the government? I'm against the stupid September 11th conspiracies because it lets the government off the hook for being cheap and ignorant of a coming threat. The borders have been sieves for years and they still haven't done anything about it. We're not secure and the only reason we've avoided disaster for so long is sheer luck. By jumping on silly easily disproven bandwagons we shield them from real criticism. I don't like that. I don't like letting them off so easy. They took the risk of letting thousands of people die so they could save a few bucks on national security, but no one's calling them on it because the focus is on remote controlled airliners and magic bombs.
There is huge profit in 9/11 both sides made and are making money. That's one of the reasons it's suspicious.
Think Haliburton. Think Carling Group.
Now the "wack-jobs" are making money on books and videos (certainly not part of whatever plan there may have been, but a reality)
Pretty sure that insurance companies have cashed in as well.
PAX
Hahahaha: Carlisle group
There's 50 partners in the Carling group.... hehehe
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Beer on the brain again... It's been too long.
Sorry, yes.. Carlisle group.. Silly me. Good catch, glad you've looked up that tree. I find the birds that nest there quite interesting indeed. Money makes strange bedfellows as well it seems.
PAX
Jeremy Knox wrote:Hahahaha wrote:Somehow I really doubt Buchanan would give a grain of sand to help the Clintons. I really, really doubt it when you look at his track record. Cons are unhappy with the current fiscal policy because it is anything but conservative. Yes, conservatives tend to have larger military bugets, but this is out of control, something usually reserved for Democrats
PAX
The Clintons aren't the Democratic party. They're just the figureheads. Same with the Republicans. Bush isn't totally running the show. Also, I doubt we'll ever see a return to a conservative budget. It's sort of like how movies in Hollywood are all worth 100 million each now when you could easily make the exact same movie for about 20. The difference is that with 20 million you can't squander a penny and with 100 million a lot of stupid crap can be bought like a new Viper for the producer so he can get to and from the set, or a boob job for the star's wife, or a trip to Tahiti to do "reshoots", ect... The same premise applies to politics, the more money you throw around, the easier it is to spend some of it on useless "personal" crap, or for it to go missing altogether. If 100,000$ dissapears from a million dollars, people ask uncomfortable questions; but if the same amount goes mission from a hundred million, nobody notices.
Considering how the naso-anally locked Rep's fled that sinking ship like rats on the ports deal... I'm not surprised.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
