Read for comprehension:
If your claim was that it was a relatively bigger issue in the 90’s, you should have said that.
What you said was “nobody was complaining.”
Except for the states and countries that do in fact balance their budgets. Were the surplus years in the late 90’s a myth?
Oh yeah, and I meant nobody. Not. One. Soul.
:rolleyes:
I hope it feels good to be “technically” right, which is almost always just another way to say “wrong.”
Dude, you’re the one who responded to a qualified, balanced statement with sweeping hyperbole, not me.
Yoiks!!
I was googling and wiki-ing candidates on the list above and jumpin jehosaphat!
Who did Santorum PO?
Crikey, what do his kids, and relatives think of THAT?
Sex columnist Dan Savage.
Pretty sure this started when you misunderstood Rnatb’s point, which you proved by those articles you posted that supported it.
So my mistake was my qualified, balanced statement to someone else’s hyperbole. Got it.
Jeb Bush would have a difficult time divorcing himself from his goofy brother and the right wing neocons. It is well deserved. How could he pretend he is different?
Huckabee has a hook to a small group and there are doubts that he could gain traction on a national stage.
Paul is nuts.
Palin is nuts too.
I said that I “didn’t hear a peep” about the deficit in the W years. You responded by posting a bunch of articles from the W years that said no one is talking about the deficit. But if you just want to feel like a “winner” here for some reason, knock yourself out.
I said, in post #50, that it got comparatively less traction during the Bush years, but that it wasn’t true that “nobody was complaining.”
You took issue with that, so I gave cites of people complaining about the deficit under Bush.
Now you’re saying that all you really meant was that it got comparatively less traction during the Bush years.
Thanks ever so much for wasting my time.
:rolleyes: Say something useful or clam up. When you start selectively quoting yourself you’re just way too close to a parody for comfort.
So, there was an opinion piece by Kevin McCullough on FoxNews.com yesterday that I just came across. I have no idea whether he’s a prominent voice in Conserva-land, but it seems safe to say that this isn’t a unique view – Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC Poll – And Its Mission:
Oh, man, I so want to be able to get out the popcorn for that upcoming show.
Unfortunately, I think the likelihood of there being, y’know, an actual substantive rift in conservative politics is close to naught, at least for decades to come. The uneasy truce will continue – while the economy is recovering, libertarians will gain some traction; when the economy is stronger, the “moral” majority will dominate.
The peep I heard about deficits was “deficits don’t matter”.
There are those on both sides of the aisle that would stand behind this statement 100%. That doesn’t make them true “Conservatives” (or Scotsmen for that matter).
If I know someone’s social policy, it cannot be said that I can predict his economic policy or his foreign policy. Within the outposts of fascism, anarchy, globalism, protectionism, libertarianism, populism, socialism, and capitalism, there are myriad concatenations of political philosphy.
In short, the labels “conservative” and “liberal”, standing alone, tell me very little about a person.
It’s not as embarrasing/funny as his concession speech when he got kicked out of office :
As far as the OP goes, the opinion of a small bunch of political activists/political junkies at some conference is irrelevant. Nobody is going to run for election on a platform of massive cuts in services, it isn’t going to happen. And we’re not going to see big cuts in spending by wither side either. Eventually taxes will go up and programs will be reformed to spend less money.
Pish-posh to your post, for two reasons.
Firstly, those terms standing alone tell one quite a bit about a person, especially when limited to American politics. Like all generalizations, they may fall short when applied to particulars, but that need not be the inferential stumbling block you want it to be.
Secondly, the context of the cite is that of a social conservative (SoCon) writing about libertarians. We know that to this author, “true ‘Conservatives’” ARE SoCons. If you have an issue with the fallacious viewpoint, take it up with McCullough and FoxNews, but I suspect his viewpoint is fairly widespread amongst SoCons. And hence my hunkering for popcorn. 
In the broader context of the thread, it’s my opinion that there’s nowhere near a large enough number of [libertarians | Libertarians | fiscal conservatives | whatever ] to successfully win elections on their own. IMHO, they absolutely require votes from the SoCons and will for decades – perhaps generations is a better expression of time frame – to come.
Honestly, there’s very little that I’d like more than to see the SoCons lose influence in all aspects of American life…but it’s just not gonna happen (IMHO).
At least as Democrats, the old fogies who “see no value” in personal freedom can continue to vote after death. 
Really? Cause all the legislation I’ve been hearing about has been moral conservative stuff, primarily anti-abortion.