I’m working on the real solution: Reducing the size of government and making it so the government cannot abuse the powers we the people have granted it. You with me?
ABC/WaPo: 53%, down 1;
CNN/USA Today: 56%, up 1;
Newsweek: 51%, down 1;
Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report: 51%, down 4.
Oh well, at least your poll has Bush looking good. Well, kinda good. It at least has him looking better than chopped liver fried in lye. Which, I must admit, is quite an improvement.
It’s amazing how quickly you connies (replacement for pubbies, whattaya think?) forget that there was a time, not too long ago, when we liberals were the ones who were vastly outnumbered. In fact, that reminds me, whatever happened to all those triumphant connies in Great Debates? Are they hiding? I don’t suppose the current stigmata on the admin. could have anything to do with it, could it? Nah.
Now if only they agreed with you.
Who? Cite? 'Cuz I honestly can’t think of a single SDMB regular who actually hates Bush (hate is a very powerful word, and I wish you would be more careful in it’s usage). A lot of them are extremely pissed at Bush, and with good reason, but who here hates him?
That question has no proveable answer, and can only succeed in unleashing a flood of speculation and rhetoric. I could, however, hazard a guess as to who has lost touch with earth…
Thanks. 
[nitpick]Actually you said 1/3 which is, of course, 33%. You were off by 15%[/nitpick]
Where’s the “hatred for the system” in criticizing it? This is why I said you were “full of shit,” which is rude Pittese for, “Sir/Ma’am, I disagree with your opinion. Most strenuously.” I communicated my point poorly by continuing to rant about the First Amendment, without clarifying that I was addressing the OP in a roundabout way. Like others, I get peeved by some government schmuck questioning people’s patriotism if they criticize policy. No, you are no more a government official than I am. Like I said, I goofed my message.
Well, I don’t know what Binarydrone looks like, but I saw some guy giving a puppy the evil eye in Seattle yesterday! 
It certainly looked that way to me.
Like I said, I goofed my communication in my post. Sorry I wasn’t clear in that.
Well, that’s a relief!
Damn! So am I! We should hang out!
NO! No, no, no, no! SHIT!
I must have fucked up royally for you to think that!
I definitely did not leap to the conclusion that you are a Republican!
As to the “copyright on morality” comment: I’ve noticed that some Republicans tend to spew in that vein quite a bit, same as some Democrats tend to wrap themselves in the banner of compassion. Personally, I call bullshit on them.
This is terrible. My only explanation is that I posted after sharing a bottle of wine (Merlot, quite tasty) with my wife.
Um.
The only insult I offered you was the “full of shit” comment. Sorry about my lack of skill in posting while impaired. I sincerely didn’t mean any kind of nastiness to you besides the “full of shit” bit.
And I haven’t eaten corn in over a week!
Another flatulent post by Debaser, submitted in haste before he thought about what he was saying. All things being equal, if Gore had been awarded the presidency instead of Old Yellowcake, we would not be in Iraq, there would not have been tax breaks for the rich, and the deficit would be several hundred billion dollars lower as a result. The GOP would still control Congress, so spending would be at the same level or lower, because President Gore would get fewer of his programs past the obstructionist Pubbies.
Conservatives like to think that Democrats are notorious spendthrifts, but the truth is the Clinton administration, under similar circumstances, balanced the budget and left office with a hefty surplus. Republicans talk a lot about financial responsibility, but they just don’t have the discipline to resist the opiate lure of military adventurism once they are in office. And all the money that should have been spent on butter (and more) gets spent on guns.
Nope. Now, you are in error.
It’s 1/3 of the 18% of people that are self identified as liberals who agree that the media has a liberal leaning.
Another insult hurled by Fear Itself, submitted in response to an obviously true statement that he cannot deny in good faith.
So, Gore is a liberal now?
That’s a debatable proposition. I would categorize gore as a more moderate Democrat, myself. The same goes for Bush actually. He is a moderate Republican. People who make it that far in politics usually have to be.
I said “a liberal would have” not “Al Gore would have” in my statement. Do you think Al Gore is a liberal, or do you just lack reading comprehension?
Let’s take a couple examples of politicians who are undeniably liberals. Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. If either of them were in office would you seriously deny that they would grow the government more than Bush? If so, I recommend you check yourself into a detox center immediately to get off the crack.
This is true, but irrelevant, since I wasn’t talking about Gore.
True, the budget was balanced under Clinton. But, this wasn’t because of his cutting the size of government. It was due to the tech fueled economic boom of the 90’s. This would have been the perfect time to cut the federal budget because revenues would still be up due to the good economy. Instead Clinton increased the budget by 8% during his last year in office. Bush has only increased the budget by 4% a year. However, he should be cutting it.
You keep focusing on military spending my Republicans. I have admitted that conservatives like spending on the military. However, this is only 17% or so of the budget. It’s the social programs that are making the government huge.
Faith-based initiatives
Support for school vouchers
Cutting AIDS funding
UN bashing
Union bashing
Anti-environmentalist
I could go on. He ran to the center and rules to the right.
I would love to talk about this, so let’s explore this scenario. Suppose for a moment that all of the Liberals collectively decided to get out of the way and let the Conservative radically cut social spending. No more Welfare, Food stamps, Medicare, Social Security and so forth and so on. What then? Explain to me how it is that this would make things better.
See, I get that this is a huge portion of our budget. The problem that I have really is a moral one. The fact is that there are people that simply cannot make it without help. What happens to them? Are we saying that we simply go the Darwin route and let them die off, or what?
I knew there was something I like about you, Weird. Glad to hear of your prestigious lineage.
Since it hasn’t been mentioned yet, I gather “Dimocrats” doesn’t bother anyone.
Here’s Newt Gingrich’s list of “name calling words,” along with his “glittering generalities.”
You’ll notice that “compassion” was originally one of Newt’s bad words, not one of the good ones.
Come to think of it, it might be fun to turn the tables on my friends on the other side of the aisle. Let’s see…
In the ensuing crisis of the post-Clinton era, empty compassion is not enough to address the problems both abroad and at home.
We used coercion to create a sham coalition and bring about the collapse of Iraq. The entire operation appears to be pased upon a series of pathetic lies told in a sensationalist manner to achieve self-serving goals and limit constructive debate on the issues. The Bush Administration took advantage of the permissive attitude held by most Americans in the wake of the attacks of 9/11.
Yet in the aftermath of the battle we find the Bush Administration was unprepared to deal with the consequences of such actions. Amid allegations of corruption by offering no-bid contracts to the company the Vice President once headed, we watched as the situation decayed into ever deepening destruction. The incompetent, greed induced failure to police post-war Iraq endangers our soldiers there, and threatens to devour the entire region, and will waste billions of American dollars.
At the same time, radical, ideologically driven attempts to impose faith-based initiatives at home prove the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration’s domestic policy. Liberal tax cuts for the wealthy have done virtually nothing for the common man. Shallow attempts to break the unionized bureaucracy of the federal government is already leading to an exodus of institutional memory and a reduction in government efficiency.
The Bush Administration’s sick actions have proven them to be worshippers only of the Christian God and the benefactors who put them in office. They have become traitors to the ideals of their own party, and have consolidated their power in such a way that it will be difficult to stop them now. It is urgent that we send this message to the American people: “this may be your last chance to end the nightmare.” Together, we can end the nightmare in 2004.
Simple. People weren’t starving to death in massive numbers before these social programs were created. These programs have caused more problems and more suffering than they cure.
Welfare and food stamps create a cycle of dependancy on the government. Public housing projects are another example of this. After decades of these programs running poverty is still alive and well in this country.
If you want to discourage behaviour you tax it. If you want to encourage behaviour you subsidize it. By paying people who don’t work money we are encouraging them not to work. By paying mothers more money for the more children then have we are enrouraging single, unemployed women to have more children. These programs encourage and feed the exact problems that you think they will solve.
I think a government program like welfare has about as much chance of solving the problem of poverty that a government program of “give everyone a million dollars” would of making us all rich.
Medicare pays out fractions of what the expenses of it’s patients are and those costs are passed on to those of us who pay for our health care. Socialized medicine is a better example, because this is what liberals actually want implemented. This would be a disaster for the simple reason that the government will never provide something more efficiently than the private sector will.
Social security is a ponzi scheme. I am forced to pay about $5,000 a year for people who are retired now. When I’m retired supposably the workers then will pay for me. The money is never invested and no interest is made. This is financially foolish. I want out of this system. Give me my $5,000 a year and I will invest it in my 401k and retire a millionaire after making compounding interest for 40 years (I’m 27).
Its not that conservatives want poor people to starve, old people to not be able to retire, and sick people to go without medicine.
Its that conservatives realize that the government solutions to these problems are actually worse than doing nothing at all.
It’s funny that you can deny that your political philosophy is the one of “big government” and at the same time suggest that without massive social spending programs people would be starving to death.
People aren’t helpless without the government to care for them.
Give me a fucking break. If you think that Bush is a conservative Republican you are just dumb.
This list shows very clearly where you’re at. Sheesh. If we ever actually had a conservative as president you would really shit a brick. Imagine if he actually cut a spending program what you would have to say about him!
No… A Ponzi scheme is a form of pyramid scam, which cannot balance.
Social Security can balance; it works because not everyone who pays in lives long enough to collect. If people started living longer, Social Security could be made to balance by raising the eligibility age for benefits. It’s a Tontine.
There are plenty of things wrong with Social Security as it is run in the U.S. today, but it is not a Ponzi scheme.
Trinopus
Way to weasel yourself out of a corner, Cumbubble. By your new standard, when was the last time there was a liberal in the White House? FDR? 60 years is a long time to hold a grudge, Skidmark; get over it already. By your standard, how many liberal presidents have there ever been, and how can you establish a pattern of fiscal behavior to justify your knee-jerk generalizations? Face it, Chancre Breath, your empty demonizing is based on right-wing fantasies suitable for fevered masturbation and little else.
Your razor-sharp repartee has bested me, sir. I propose we meet on the field of honor.
Actually, it is more complicated than just being a conservative. He ran as a conservative and rules as a corporatist. Many of his socially conservative initiatives are a sop to the traditional right.
Where I live he has a very strong following among the religious right. It’s a pretty poor state, low-wages, right-to-work, etc. They’re attracted by his born-again, old-time values rhetoric, while he sells them down the river with massive tax cuts to his wealthy and corporate friends.
So, you don’t think he has “actually cut a spending program?” Do you need a cite or two?
Fear Itself, the closest thing one gets to a victory in a political debate is when the other person stops rational discussion and starts raving insults.
Thank you for conceding so graciously.
Fear:
Since I have already addressed this, I will repost.
We don’t get liberals or conservatives in the white house much. We get moderates. It seems we are in agreement on this (or at least the liberal part of it.)
Corporatist?
Dictionary.com says that corporative is a political system in which the principal economic functions, such as banking, industry, labor, and government, are organized as corporate entities.
Sounds like the US of A to me. Care to expand on this?
If Gore wasn’t a corporatist then what was he?
Knock yourself out.
Actually, it depends on what your definition of a cut is. IMHO, not increasing the spending on a government program as much as it wants doesn’t constitute a cut. However, that’s obviously not how the democrats see it.
FYI: I won’t be responding to this or any other thread for the next 10 days. I’m off to a stereotypicaly conservative hunting trip. 