Posted on 12/17/2003 12:28:46 PM PST by bdeaner
Before the cranks showed up, I mean...? :)
A couple of thoughts on spending:
1. Does it matter more to you about the spending, or does it matter more about what you *got* for that spending?
2. If government spending in aggregate has *never* decreased, does that mean that America has never in its history elected a Conservative?
Wouldn't that put you in a pretty tiny minority?
Unfortunately, we've lost our party and Free Republic. Hello, Southack.
Better, more intelligent question: "does a 'true conservative' believe ONLY in reducing the size of government... or (as is more credibly the case, for those of us not overcome by a terminal case of the sulks) do TRUE conservatives feel that safeguarding the unborn, lowering taxes on working families, and championing a renewed and revitalized Reagan Doctrine, internationally, are equally or more important...?
That is the question, in essence, left unanswered by the anti-Bush screechers and shrillers, thus far. Time to get cracking on it, don't you think...?
That's the thing about free people in Democratic Republics, they vote, and the most persuasive arguments win.
The rest, like you, lose. You are in the minority. You always will be in the minority simply because Americans don't buy your hype and never will, at least not in large numbers.
It was never just "your" party. The Republican Party has been, from its inception onward, the home of principled social conservatives, just as much as it has been fiscal ones.
Anyone who has actually been a Republican longer than the last five minutes or so knows this.
We (social conservatives) fought and bled for Republican representation in Congress, on the courts and in the White House every last bit as hard and as honorably as you (fiscal conservatives) have. Our votes are as dear, and as important; and our desires no less critical or imperative than your own.
We're not going anywhere.
Get used to it.
1. You might want to read before you type. I didn't say only our party...I said OUR party. It's mine as much as it is yours. Period.
2. Fiscal, social, yada yada yada. My party stopped standing for limited government and personal responsibility. You can split the hairs as fine as you want, but that's all it boils down to with those of us whom you treat with such disrespect and vitriol (that is until it comes time to write out the checks or get out and vote).
3. We (social conservatives) fought and bled for Republican representation in Congress, on the courts and in the White House every last bit as hard and as honorably as you (fiscal conservatives) have. I'm laughing too hard to respond to this one. 'Republican' representation in Congress? What exactly does that mean? Anyone with a 'R' after their name is as good as anyone else?
Oh, and I never could get all that fiscal conservative vs. social conservative vs neo-conservative vs paleo-conservative.
Silly me...I thought the goal of Conservatism was to CONSERVE, hence the name. I thought we stood for limited government, personal responsibility -whoops- just reached that point where I know I'm wasting my time.
I know that you're not going anywhere, (and by YOU I mean the GW Bush cult of personality) unfortunately.
And after all, I don't have any kids, so I'm not going to have to pay for the orgy of government spending, the offshoring of jobs and infrastructure, and the erosion of our God given rights by politicians that have become a ruling class with your blessing.
You don't actually believe this, do you? And I thought our Republic was purposely designed to protect the rights and opinions of the minority.
You might wish to start thinking before you type; the statement above is as nonsensical as it is fatuous.
Once more, for the slow readers in class (yes, those are your ears burning): your statement was "Unfortunately, we've lost our party," and -- plainly; minus the Clintonesque spinning you're so lamely attempting, now -- this meant, in the context it was used "we fiscal conservatives, and we alone." If you don't have the strength of your own lame convictions... then: best not to air them publicly.
2. Fiscal, social, yada yada yada. My party stopped standing for limited government and personal responsibility.
If that's ALL "your" party stands for, ultimately: then (obviously) "your" party is not the Republican Party. Nor, in fact, is it even a truly conservative one, this "your" party you belong to.
People like you were best served by harmless madmen like Buchanan, or Perot. They run their inconsequential vanity campaigns, every few years... and: it gives disaffected, easily distracted single-issue voters, such as yourself, something to do with your hands in the voting booth that won't end up making you go blind(er). Let's hope you have that option open to you again this year, shall we...?
with those of us whom you treat with such disrespect and vitriol
The very notion of one of you Bush-Is-the-Devil-I-Tell-You-the-DEVIL types, p!ssing and moaning about "being treated disrespectfully" -- on a board (easily) 90% Bush-supporting, mind -- is, frankly, too hysterical a one to merit anything more, by way of response, than a snort and a giggle. Here's both.
'Republican' representation in Congress? What exactly does that mean? Anyone with a 'R' after their name is as good as anyone else?
Is weasely equivocation the entire life's blood of the standard, typical anti-Bush zealot? Asked and answered, eighteen or twenty times over. Ending abortion. Getting more conservative justices appointed. Lower taxes. The Reagan Doctrine. (You wouldn't think so many so-called "conservatives" could be so repeatedly, obdurately dense on these oft-repeated points, would you...?)
No one amongst the anti-Bush rabids -- not ONE, mind -- has credibly, successfully gainsaid Bush's efforts and/or results, on any of these; OR managed to convince, persuasively, why these are any less important to the conservative cause, and conservative principles, than the issue of federal spending. Stamp your hoof twice, if any of this is sinking in for you yet.
Better yet: try making the case why ANY of these -- protecting the unborn; etc. -- should, by rights take second place to anything else on the conservative "to-do" list. You (and your clique) have done a p!ss-poor job of it, thus far.
Silly me...I thought the goal of Conservatism was to CONSERVE, hence the name. I thought we stood for limited government, personal responsibility -whoops- just reached that point where I know I'm wasting my time.
Ah. I see. Then it is all just about Mammon for you, ultimately, then.
Well, then. You're absolutely correct. You are simply wasting your time.
However... all's not lost. I can certainly take steps to make certain you waste no more of mine; a more valuable commodity overall, I daresay.
Am I a fiscal conservative? I thought I was a fiscal AND social conservative. No, wait, maybe it was PALEO and fiscal conservative? I'm not as intelligent as your group. Maybe you should type slower so I can understand.
Jeez, can you read? I said my party stopped standing for limited government and personal responsbility. Stop parsing my words -- leave them to me. The Republican party no longer stands for limited government and personal responsibility. That's all I said.
Ending abortion. Getting more conservative justices appointed. Lower taxes. The Reagan Doctrine. (You wouldn't think so many so-called "conservatives" could be so repeatedly, obdurately dense on these oft-repeated points, would you...?)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I want some of what you're smoking. Tell you what...when this administration is over, let's all sit down and see how we did, shall we? Let's see if our first and second amendment rights are still intact, if abortion is still the law of the land, how many strict constructionists are on the Supreme Court, how much our TRUE tax rate is, how big our government has become on W's watch, how well The Reagan Doctrine has been advanced, and all of the other things that are supposedly near and dear to your heart that have been spun or forgotten by the Bushbots.
But I have a feeling you'll all conveniently forget all the crowing you did about W's brilliance, just as all of you forgot how much you bludgeoned us when we warned you that W was signing an extra-constitutional bill in CFR. The BS line was similar: 'don't worry, the Supremes will strike it down. It's a brilliant political move.'
One side of this is going to be right. When you turn out to be wrong I hope you have the honor to apologize for your condescending attitudes. But I won't hold my breath.
Also, I never said Bush is the devil. I simply said he's no Reagan, and he's certainly no conservative.
And lastly...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You and Southack are right...the majority has prevailed, and those of us who still believe in the core principles of modern conservatism are in the minority. I can only speak for myself when I say that I'm not all that interested in the Republican party anymore, and I've lost my interest in politics in general, because I rightly recognize that our elected officials have no loyalty to their party, their constituents, or the US Constitution.
I guess what galls me is that people like you let them get away with it.
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.