Posted on 09/20/2011 11:11:46 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Homosexuality is a mental illness, it was only deemed not so by political pressure.
And you think there is no such thing as a sex pervert either. My, my, what a nice unicorn filled pink fairyland you live in.
I don’t attend any churches, so I don’t have a preacher.
Is it wrong to call the mentally ill “mentally ill”?
Is it wrong to call sex perverts “sex perverts”?
I wonder where you draw the line. Pedophiles? There is a move to call them “MAPs” - Minor Attracted Persons, without the nasty criminal, pervert or mental illness stigma. They’re people, too!
Remind me again, how possible it was to Run on Privatizing Social (ist In)Security, let alone get elected while doing so.
9/11 intervened, but that was to be his signature issue, before becoming a wartime President.
That would have been the largest transfer of power from the Federal Government, to the Citizen, in modern times.
Either No Child Left Behind or Medicare Part D.
Medicare Part D, the first entitlement since LBJ.
Neither of which make you very conservative.
There are decent rationale behind both.
NCLB, sets standards, which...Teachers unions abhor...see past the rhetoric. Kids don’t pass, questions get asked.
Part D. Newt laid out that reasoning. Preventative Medicine, is by far cheaper, long term than disaster care.
(and therefore Mitigates reg. Medicare. reducing costs, long term. and Part D, is by any measure fiscally successful..(As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[18] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions))
49 Billion? Thats a far cry from what we spend on part A and B. (589 Billion in FY 2008)
And reducing that cost was the aim of the program.
Once you get the first half, the other side is now bargaining against you gaining 51% AND UPWARD.
Part D increases the unfunded liabilities of the federal government by 5 Trillion.
He would have needed to get his Soc Sec plan passed just to get the unfunded liabilities back to a net zero for his term.
As to NCLB, national standards are something that conservatives have been historically against and something that bureaucrats and UN types have been for (see Goals 2000)
In the final analysis Bush was able to get through a lot of the left’s wish list that Clinton could not. Just call it compassionate conservatism and as always the adjectives negates the noun. Sure the left hated him for it but notice how they love Obama for continuing Bush policies.
I guess we’d better not decide until all candidates are vetted to the hilt. What is your definition of flaky? Thanks for your summation of the candidates thus far. Tonight may tell the tale.
You live in a strange world, Reagan Man, but remember this, God loves you anyway. :o) now I will give you the last word.
Flaky to me is someone who is inconsistent in tone, and says some odd stuff, like the “I heard that Gardisil caused someones mental retardation” that Bachmann proclaimed.
Would love to see an “Attack Obama” night. Gingrich will do it with glee and Perry will after he knocks on Romney a bit. The others don’t seem as concerned.
That’s not correct.
You cannot factor in unfunded liablities as a straight dollar cost without factoring in savings on the back end.
That’s the Lefts AntiGWB talking point.
And as for NCLB.
As long as there IS a DOE. The one justifiable reason for it is a minimum standard of education.
I get the Goals2000 thing, however, The fact that bureaucrats and UN types have been for it, only happens when?
When Lefties control the Government.
That sword cuts both ways.
Spening money to save money, now who is sounding like a liberal?
Next tell me about the great conservatism of Gerald Ford
:D
Changing the way Money is already spent, in order to spend less of it, is the proper phraseology.
Unless of course you’ve come across a way to gut Medicare without handing elections to the Democrat party.
It’s one thing to stand on principle.
But, In Politics, The first principle is to wield political power. Sitting on the sidelines does nothing to advance the cause.
Principles, Fighting the good fight? This isn’t Yale. Fighting the good fight but going down nobly spares not one taxpayer dollar, nor save one innocent life.
If you believe what you believe, and you believe the other side is wrong, implementation, is the measure of success.
Reagan himself said it best
‘Reagan responded by explaining that compromise is not retreat: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.’
Look if you want to delude yourself into thinking that Rockefeller Repubs are figthing for the right (as opposed to fighting the right) side you go right ahead.
Progressive Republicans are almost as bad as Progressive Democrats, and in one way worse. They aren’t the judas goats.
The 1990’s was a hell of a more conservative decade, balanced budgets, entitlement reform, etc.
Clinton couldn’t do what GWB did. The GOP Congress would not let him.
Respectfully, you are judging GWB through half the prism supplied by those that elected a marxist.
The previous several posts laid out the rationale for certain policy decisions, (and accurate ones) in the face of unprecedented opposition.
And Buttressed by Reagan’s own argument.
Running back to Clinton, only weakens the argument you’re making.
Anything Clinton did, was going to get whitewashed by the media, from your examples, to firing cruise missles at empty tents during the Lewinsky scandal.
Bush did two things.
(aside from Changing American Foreign Policy, so reolutely that Obama is forced to govern by HIS dictates)
Put Teachers on the record.
Reduced Long term entitlement spending.
You can point to a new entitlement, but the honest CBA is it REDUCES taxpayer spending.
“Part D is now expected to cost taxpayers about 46% less than originally estimated for the period of 2004 to 2013. This is unprecedented in the history of entitlements. Premium costs for seniors are 43% lower than expected. In recent polls, 84% of enrollees say they are satisfied with their coverage, and 95% say their plans work well. Enrollment in Part D has grown steadily, from 11.6 million in 2005 to 27.6 million last year.”
And that is before you get to the reduction in costs on parts A and B.
http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/29/medicare-part-d.html
They keep growing an ever increasing Leviathan. A Leviathan with a police state at home and wide open borders at the same time. Each time bigger and badder than the one before. I see little change in this trend. Now I got to get some actual work done today.
I'd be all for incrementalism, if I just saw it moving towards the right goal line.
3%, two wars, Part D, and exploding SSI/Meidcare benefits. ?
3% of GDP which would be
3/18 or a 16.6% increase in govenrment spending as weighted by GDP.
I knew we were screwed when the first budget came out for FY2002 it was at 2 Trillion, projected to end at FY10 at 3 trillion.
But it’s to be expected from a scion of a Rockefeller Repub family. Gore and Kerry would have been even worse.
I heard this AM on the radio that a large part of the new jobs in Texas went to illegal immigrants. This from either Don Imus or Lauraa Ingram.
So, Thad drops out...and supports....Mittens?”
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.