Replies

When Republicans expand socialism, what does it matter who controls the House? When Republicans steal freedom or property, what does it matter who controls the House?

If this becomes law, I will not be voting for Republicans or Democrats.

Well I remember when Reagan (the greatest POTUS in my lifetime) was criticized again and gain by the perpetual whiner conservative class while he was in office.

Reagan was for big government because he didn't abolish one agency and even expanded some.

Reagan was a closet one worlder who packed his cabinet with same. stole freedom by the of the banking laws passed.

Reagan stole freedoms/liberties by signing certain banking secrecy laws and issuing certain executive orders.

Reagan was a socialist because of the big spending/deficits.

Etc, etc., whine, whine, whine.

The same losers who now call themselves things like "Reagan Renaissance" or "Regan Man", were the very same ones promising not to vote for Reagan the different reasons mentioned above.

Just what is your point?!

Reagan may not have been perfect, but we always knew where he stood: That in most areas of concern, Government was the problem not the solution.

The Reagan Administration, on the subject of Health Care and Federal policy, seriously considered closing down the Federal Department (then) of Health, Education & Welfare. Had our position been a little stronger in the Congress, they would have.

If you are suggesting that vastly expanding Medicare is not a complete reversal of what had been the Conservative Republican policy from FDR, through LBJ's ramming Medicare through Congress in 1965, up until the present Republican Administration, you will be denying a lot of political history. Why not just admit that you, as an individual, do not share the same values as those of us to whom this is an outrage. Why can't we at least have a frank exchange of opinions, and not mask that exchange by suggesting that those of us who believe the Constitution should be respected, who believe in economy not waste in Government, who believe in individual not collective responsibility for individual needs, are somehow being alamists, or hysterical.

If you want to honestly debate the issues, we will accommodate you, with courtesy and respect. If you insist on casting ad hominem slurs, by comparing us to unnamed alarmists, you will also get an appropriate response.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Well I remember when Reagan (the greatest POTUS in my lifetime) was criticized again and gain by the perpetual whiner conservative class while he was in office. Reagan was for big government because he didn't abolish one agency and even expanded some. Reagan was a closet one worlder who packed his cabinet with same. stole freedom by the of the banking laws passed. Reagan stole freedoms/liberties by signing certain banking secrecy laws and issuing certain executive orders. Reagan was a socialist because of the big spending/deficits. Etc, etc., whine, whine, whine. The same losers who now call themselves things like "Reagan Renaissance" or "Regan Man", were the very same ones promising not to vote for Reagan the different reasons mentioned above.

There is a lot of truth to what you say. For one, remember the "Greenspan commission" and the social security "deal" back in 1983/1984 ... that saved Social Security for another 20 years. This bill on medicare is like that one, although this one has some more Conservative market-reform elements that the social security bill didnt have - and that had a payroll tax *hike*!!

Considering that this bill is more conservative than drug benefit bills that previously passed the House in previous Congresses, and considering that Bush had already *promised* a prescription drug benefit, it could have been worse for conservatives. I am not saying I like the bill, but I am saying we (conservatives) did better than we might have in this process.

It's called dissent. When politicians do something wrong or stupid, their mistakes should be highlighted because it is we that pay for the mistakes, not the politicians. When politicians do something self-serving designed only to insure their own re-election and that something is extremely detrimental to the American people, then those politicians should be not rewarded with votes. Rewarding bad behavior simply encourages more bad behavior. It is what got us into this mess and certianly will not be what gets us out.

How do conservatives gain by electing Republicans who have been more successful at advancing Democratic issues than Democrats were? Is your goal to elect Republicans or to restore conservative values?

Have you looked at electoral data from the US? Most elections are close and fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. And the trend over the last dozen or so elections as been toward even closer elections. America is polarized, not united. There are two camps with almost completely divergent world views. So far this "war" between these rather equally balanced camps has been mostly peaceful. Apart from the exceptions of lunatic environmental groups on the left and few killings related to abortion clinics, this war has been fought with ballots instead of bombs and bullets. I will submit that it has been mostly peaceful, because the right has been gaining power at the expense of the left, but not so much power that the left thinks the direction of change is cast in stone or that the changes that have occured are permanent. If the trend to the right accelerates or even relentless continues farther right, I suspect you will see the hostility level on the left increase. By the same token, if the trend were to reverse, even a little, you would see dramatically rising hostility levels from the right.

Since the United States is dead on course for hyperinflation or debt default before 2016, the states are unlikely to united much longer. I would not be surprised to see the first secession shortly before or after the 2008 election. We could easily see several secessions by 2012. And with no change in the political or economic trends that are already in place, there won't be a Presidential election in 2016 in the US as we know it.

If Republicans could find another Ronald Reagan and elect him before 2012, the outcome could be very different. The renaissance that could and that probably would follow might be the most productive period of peace and prosperity in the history of man. The reason you correctly recognize Reagan as the greatest President in modern times is because Reagan was enough of a leader to take the course that he believed to be right regardless of the potential political consequences and then proved his leadership capabilities by persuading enough Americans to his position to over power his political opponents. Reagan fought rather than switch, and he won. The Bushes have switched without a fight. "Read my Lips" and campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. For the record, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. The same Republicans that fought Hilliary Care now can't wait to pass Bush Cares. I never thought I would see the day in my lifetime when I would thank God for the opposition of Democrats and be praying that the Senate Democrats block one more Bush prescription.

There is an old saying that the majority is almost always wrong and on the rare occassions when the majority happens to be right, it will be for the wrong reasons. The Senate Democrats aren't the majority at the moment, but this is the first time in my sixty years that the Democrats want to vote correctly, but they have fulfilled the other part of the canard; they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

GO DASCHLE! HOLD THAT LINE!