Maybe Karl Rove Has a Point

Human Events ^ | 2/6/2013 09:30 PM | By: David Harsanyi

[EyeSalveRich]

Mr. Wright, I presented historic and logical facts, and you resort to name-calling. Hmm. My two posts made two points. 1.Reagan balloned the debt to gdp ratio. This is historic fact. I contend that is not conservative. Which do you think is foolish? Do reject history. Or do you think balooning debt to gdp is conservative and to suggest otherwise is foolish? The other post simply pointed out that our freedoms are lost by gradual compromise. I consider this simple historic fact. Are you suggesting we have not lost freedoms gradually, and that it is foolish to suggest we have.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are picking straw arguments out of context and trying to make yourself look enlightened and intelligent above where you really are. First, Reagan did not ballon the deficit or debt to GDP ratio. It happened while he was President, but as a result of things he was AGAINST and the things he WAS FOR actually prevented it from being worse. Anyone not smart enough to realize that is just on a different plane than I choose to inhabit intellectually.

The argument that I would support ballooning debt is beneath contempt and therefore you deserve whatever pepper I send your way. That is assinine, and we know what kind of people make assinine points. Again, you are actling like a little Occupy Wall Street liberal with your straw argument.

Moroever, and I will type real slow on this one because I know this one is a streeeeeettttttcccchhhhh for the liliputian mind, any loss of freedom is bad, but a slower loss of freedom is LESS BAD than a faster loss of freedom.

For those of more pedestrian IQ’s, lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. It will sink in immediately.

[Servant of the Cross]

Reagan balloned the debt to gdp ratio.

President Reagan decided to strike compromises with Democrats on several issues in the 80's so that he could continue his overall agenda of restoring America's greatness and defeating the Evil Empire. He was quite successful which is an historic and logical (sic) fact. ['Tear down this wall' ring any bells?] Remember the economy left to him by that anti-Semitic socialist feller from GA? He had quite a mess on his hands to fix.

You can read more about it here: As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley points out, "Reagan was willing to raise the debt ceiling to get the money for his defense buildup which helped win the Cold War." That was a slightly higher priority than funding green energy projects and high-speed rail.

Hysterical, not to mention hypocritical to the nth degree, for modern-day Democrats to use President Reagan in such a smarmy fashion.

Come to think of it, you post like one of these "modern-day Democrats". Sniff.

[Impy]

Is Duffy conservative? I don’t know much about him.

[PhilCollins]

I think that State Sen. Dan Duffy is conservative. He usually votes for lower tax rates and lower spending, and he’s pro-life. He voted against the law that will allow illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses.

[spintreebob]

Duffy is a good man but not perfect. Morrison, Oberweiss, and others are good.

[PhilCollins]

I agree that Sen. Oberweis and Rep. Morrison are good and should run for higher offices. If, in 2014, State Sen. Murphy runs for a higher office, Morrison should run for Murphy’s senate seat. In 2018, Oberweis should run for treasurer or comptroller.

[EyeSalveRich]

Well at least you indirectly answered one of my questions. You do reject history. Reagan signed into law many bills which ballooned the debt-to-gdp ratio. You deny that. Saying he was really against these things, doesn’t change the fact that his signature is on them. He, as chief executive, has culpability. You cannot blame the democrats for him pushing for very high military spending. Clearly you are a Reagan worshipper. I would agree that he was one of the best presidents of the last hundred years, but that doesn’t mean I am not willing to discuss bad things like spending money you don’t have. If you want to argue that “the end justifies the means” that is a different argument, but be clear about what you are saying.

The other point you also indirectly answered by your posts to others and me. You prefer the slow loss of freedom to taking a stand for restoring good government. There are different ways to take a stand to restore good government.
1. You can vote for someone who espouses it, or preferably has a reliable record of it like Ron Paul. You clearly vehemently oppose that kind of a stand for what is right, and would rather vote for a neo-con traitor.
2. You can persuasively fight for the hearts and minds of men to embrace the ideals of good government. You would rather slander those who oppose ballooning debt.
3. You can take up actual arms and revolt. I presume you are not doing that.

It is sad that when you are losing an argument, or your icon is questioned that you just resort to name calling and false associations. Your words to me were “assinine,[twice], Occupy Wall Street Liberal, liliputian, pedestrian IQ, trying to ..look ..intelligent above where you really are, stunningly foolish, mentally handicapped”. Your words to others were “deaf and blind, your irrelevance, shallow, facile, brain dead, arrogant, out of touch with reality, sick navel gazing narcissistic, too obtuse to understand, ignorance, phony self righteous”. It is clear you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent civil debate. 350 years ago in America you would probably have been flogged for such behavior.

[C. Edmund Wright]

you’re an idiot, and a coward, and too idiotic to figure out how I realized you were also a coward. I will not be responding to you again.

[Servant of the Cross]

It took you two weeks, and all we got for the wait was blather like this?! Ron Paul?! Reliable?!

I am also willing to discuss bad things about ole reliable LRon. Here's just a few ...

LRon Paul Wants Kucinich in his Cabinet

Nader, who has recently called this progressive-liberaltarian coalition "the most exciting new political dynamic" in the US today …….. "I believe in coalitions," Rep. Paul echoed.

maher would vote for Lron

Paul will give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

Ron Paul booed during Tea Party debate after Osama bin Laden answer

In the space of 24 hours, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has voted for tax hikes, against censure for Charlie Rangel, and defended Julian Assange.

Ron Paul votes to homosexualize the US Military

Ron Paul hearts Debra Medina

Ron Paul: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents are “Islamophobes.”

Ron Paul wouldn't have approved Osama bin Laden operation

Source: photoshop artist FReeper humblegunner

Thankfully, the circus has left town for good.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Isn’t if funny, as in sad, the way EyeSalveRich accuses folks of “worshipping” Reagan when all we are doing is supporting the IDEAS of Reagan, even over some of the SPECIFIC ACTIONS of Reagan, but of course, to a Kool Aid drinker like little Richie, the notion of ideas over the cult of personality is beyond his liliputian mind.

[dirtboy]

You can vote for someone who espouses it, or preferably has a reliable record of it like Ron Paul.

You mean this Ron Paul?

Wild Shrimp! (Ron Paul's take of Wild Thing)

Sung to the tune of Wild Thing by the Troggs.

Wild shrimp!
I am your pork pimp!
I'll make federal funds ... easy!
Wild shrimp!

Wild shrimp, I want to pimp you
But I gotta know for sure.
Will eight mil be enough?
You need it...

Wild shrimp!
My values go limp!
I'm just an earmark pimp
For my wild shrimp!

[EyeSalveRich]

Servant of the Cross, I take it that you are a Christian. Good. Don’t think that I am some blind follower of Ron Paul. I have some definite disagreements with him. I voted for him because of these facts.
1. He is a professing Christian. God is of supreme importance
2. He is a staunch constitutionalist and has both the voting record and personal life to back that up. The constitution IS the SUPREME law of this land. So I consider it a bit important to have someone who is a staunch supporter of it.
3. A major plank of his is to reduce federal government spending and power without raising taxes. He has the voting record to show for it. He is the only major candidate I know of the supports abolishing the Department Of Education, and putting education back in the hands of the states and communities. The DOE is a primary factor in the loss of the next generation. I consider our children VERY important.
4. He is the only major candidate I am aware of which has stood against the Federal Reserve, the biggest band of criminals in the history of mankind, financially enslaving the world. I consider the financial enslavement of the world a major issue.
Maybe you have other priorities. Okay. But I would at least think you could respect the priorities above. Two of the links you provided were about his bin laden stance. I would think you could at least respect his strong constitutional position that it is not our place to assassinate citizens of other sovereign countries, without declaring war. You may disagree with that. But it is hard to deny if you respect the rule of law.

Please, servant of the cross, tell me who you voted for, and why. I hope it wasn’t for Romney. He is a member of what most Christians consider a cult. He is completely untrustworthy and has flip-flopped on every critical issue. He stands for nothing, and would only have led America down a mildly modified Obama path of more socialism.

Every president in either party except for Andrew Jackson has taken on more debt, and increased the size of the Federal government. Andrew Jackson on the other hand took a firm stand against the banksters, and eliminated the national debt.

[cuban leaf]

Thankfully, the circus has left town for good.

---

It will have left town when we are living in “The Book of Eli” times.

Sadly, Paul will never get any traction because the country has shifted so far away from the principles upon which this country was founded. The chickens we hathced over the last hundred years will all need to come to roost. It will not be pretty. Though many will see the wisdom in some of his positions, which are based on his core principles, sadly, it will be too late.

It is clear that, though Paul does have some positions I strongly disagree with, he is the closest thing to our founding fathers, regarding his perspective and his willingness to stand behind it, than any other member of any of the three branches of our FedGov.