Posted on 01/28/2008 4:10:20 PM PST by lonestar67
Edited on 01/28/2008 6:39:39 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Amen to that.
You must be a HUGE fan of President Reagan's then. And who is "Jorge"?
Thank you LUV. I sometimes spend 8 hours or more on an animation.
I can recall ‘d’ posts in late 2002, not as large then, lol.
not as STPUD as your neo-con pap.
you and Bush have your heads up your collective fundaments.
ps. don't assume I am not a Mason.
I mentioned the SC judges, the tax cuts will be taken away and you must be joking about the economy. Next you’ll tell me the borders are secure.
No I am not joking about the economy.
I can agree with that. The part that bothers me wrt W is that I think he really could have been great had he simply stuck to his original plans and not tried to please everyone.... particlarly trying to gain favor with Kennedy on education. That was just dumb. If he does nothing this last year but build a fence, that would help too.
“No, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let’s not bicker and argue over who killed who... “
Try giving a reason for your position. I did. You haven’t. Therefore, it’s your rhetoric that is “pap”.
I had to DVR the address and am just watching it now. After President Bush said, for people who want to pay more taxes, “I’m pleased to report the IRS accepts both checks and money orders!”...then the camera panned to Dems like Hillie and Biden, etc, in the audience and all you saw were sour faces amongst much other laughter. LOL!
On your point about nuclear power, I actually do think (as he pointed out) that we DO need to wean ourselves off of oil and turn to alternative fuels of various types. Nuclear? That could be okay. I'm not sure it's the most cost effective, but okay, maybe.
The point needs to be, though, that progress in this area is not going to come from government development or government funding (if anything I think they've been more of a hindrance than anything), but rather it SHOULD come from private scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs. They nearly always do a better job and do it more cost-efficiently than the government does.
1941.....we went to war. we chose allies. We fought to win. we sent forces to protect our borders and we put possible enemy aliens in concentration camps. We secured our fuel supplies as an emergency measure of war.
Bush, like his father hemmed, hawed, performed surgical strikes (nothing beats a conflagration, taking out a major city completely to break an enemy’s spirit, just ask the survivors of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki )
No, Bush fights the war like we fought Viet Nam, and it is being prosecuted by a bunch of old granny politicians.
You either fight a war or you crawl back into your hole....we are doing neither, we are doing it piecemeal, a little from column A and little from column B.
Too much reason...too much politics...too many positions to listen to. NO ACTION...NO BALLS.
Thank you. You help me make my point. It does no good to talk small government on one hand if you’re just going to vote for a bigger one on the other.
whatever
whatever
I am fed up with hypothetical conservatism that pretends there is a perfect conservative coming to power somewhere. Reagan was no such person, nor is Bush. This is just cantankerous personal attitudes parading as some sort of virtue.
I do not see it.
The point is that if we don't incessantly demand it, we will NEVER get a president who does practice real conservatism. We can't give passes to half-hearted or even out-and-out fake conservatives and expect anything to get better or become more conservative. If we don't actually care about making things more conservative then we ought to just say so and stop pretending that we DO want things to be more conservative. But I for one do actually WANT our leadership and government to become more conservative, and, that being so, I have no choice but to continue hammering that home every chance I get.
We don't get good government by just sitting back and accepting their flaws. We have to continually push them to become better---even when we have politicians who are already pretty good like Reagan was. "Iron sharpens iron."
On the way to a balanced budget in 2012. Not an insignificant accomplishment if FedGov actually gets there.
Great.
Without these three accompanying actions, a balanced budget may set back the time on the time bomb which is our national debt but will never be able to actually remove the problem or alleviate the almost certain financial meltdown that is coming our way in the next few decades due to our overwhelming entitlements we've promised through programs like Social Security and Medicare.
I, like you, would certainly applaud a balanced budget though as a good early step in the process. Let's see if they'll actually go through with it or not.
Since the items mentioned aren’t happening and won’t ever be happening in this life, we’ll just have to play the hand. They are way beyond any econ theory.
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.