That's the problem, Jarrad. Republicans see them as separate issues, but they are all tied together. Providing for a strong defense does not mean nation building--something Bush based his 2000 Presidential run on (no nation building<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideosearch%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dbush%2Bno%2Bnation%2Bbuilding%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8%26ei%3DEfjtSe69GIWYtAP&feature=player_embedded>). But, once he took office, was attacked, and then couldn't sell the idea of WMDs <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/> or a link to Al-Qaeda<http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/>, the invasion of Iraq was portrayed as a liberation of the Iraqi<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83292,00.html>people from a tyrannical dictator; basically, Iraq has become a nation we are building up--exactly the opposite that Bush was running his campaign on! This just bolsters the point, that once in power, Republicans want to accomplish the exact things as the Democrats--seize power.
And, I'm not calling you names, I'm just pointing out that you are the epitome of a pot--as in the pot calling the kettle black--when you say he shouldn't make blanket statements about Conservatives, when you go on to make comments like, "BAIPA, gun control, gay marriage, or most of his other*far left social-wacko views *." Since when is gay married a "far left social-wacko view?" I know PLENTY of libertarians that are in complete support of this. Hell, Joel marched in a parade, and you wouldn't label him a "far left social-wacko." But yet, here you are making broad, overreaching generalizations, only to demand that the other side doesn't make any your direction. So, no Jarrad, I'm not calling you names. I'm just calling it how it is. It just infuriates you that someone calls you on your bullshit. "Who cares that it was an election year." The politicians cared. Which, is why they started standing up to Bush. But, again, where were these guys the 7 years prior? NO WHERE IN SIGHT! Only after a _major_ defeat in 2006 did they change their attitudes. Which plays right into the author's point--Republicans only tout limited government and limited government spending when they are not in power--or about to lose power, which was the case in 2008. -Lance On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> wrote: > The liberals I was referring to I know personally from having worked with > them in the Pharmacology Department. at UVa from August 14, 2006 - November > 21, 2008. You fell to easy for that one...And Stop the name calling or it > will get ugly. > Ok, your bulking Bush's expansion of the government via military and DoD > with his later Economic programs (TARP and Stimulus programs). > Conservatives see them as separate issues. Conservatives didn't protest > his early Military/DoD expansion because most of them don't oppose it, and > most still don't. A majority of them do oppose Bush and now Obama on their > government interventionist policies relating to the funding and > semi-nationalization of Private Industry. Again, t*hey see them > as separate issues. One serves national defense, the other is economic. > *Like it or hate it, Conservatives generally (with a few exceptions) > detest Government expansion in size, power and scope when dealing with the > private sector and the economy. They do not feel that the Constitution > provides the federal government with the power or authority for such > interference in that area. They do however, feel that the Constitution > provides the Fed Government the Right to Provide a strong national defense, > and thus their support for increasing budgets in both Military and DoD while > simultaneously opposing government expansion in the Economic/Private Sector. > To say their the party of small government is a misnomer. They support > small government and conservative Fiscal Spending on Social and Economic > Interventionist programs they believe to be constitutionally unfounded. > They generally support a large military and DoD Budget, which in their > minds helps provide for a Constitutionally founded "common defense". > > Who cares that it was an election year. Whatever their personal > motivations, they voted against their President and party!! We'd all prefer > politicians to stick to principle when voting, but that is not always the > case. Some politicians have no principle to stick to. Others do so only > when its expedient. You brought up a great example of some (not all) > unprincipled republican politicians being forced to vote for the principles > of their constituency, in order to save their own ass. > > > Jarrad > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:18 AM, Lance McCulley wrote: > > Seriously, Jarrad? 2008 was an election year. After loosing their asses in > 2006<http://www.rediff.com/cms/print.jsp?docpath=//news/2006/nov/08bush.htm>, > they had to do something to keep their seats. Where were all of these > "conservative leaders" in 2001-2007, when Bush expanded the > government<http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=939>more than any president since > FDR<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/big-government-gets-bigger/>(Home > Land Security <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34637,00.html>)? No > where. This is not his fiscal policy I'm speaking of that you love to claim > as "liberal spending." This is his government expansion policies. > > The point of the article is that we've all seen this move by the GOP > before. They are out of power now, and because of that, they are trying to > rile up the public to be anti-government. But, when they were in power and > expanding government, where was the public outcry? Where were the tea > parties? No where. > > Do we need a anti-tax movement? HELL YES! But not orchestrated by the same > party that, when in power, only tries to grab more power and expand it's > control. > > This was pretty humorous--"talked with independents, liberals and > libertarians all in attendance (the liberals I didn't talk to, but > recognized)." How did you recognize the liberals? Were they all wearing name > tags with political viewpoints on them? Were they all in a corner smoking > grass and talking about how many abortions they had? Talk about making > blanket statements... You are the epitome of a pot. > > -Lance > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Jarrad Reiner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The author fails to mention it, but there have been many elected >> "conservative leaders" who opposed their own President and Party during the >> Bush Socialist Streak of 2008. In 2008, 108 Republican >> Representatives<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml>and 15 >> Republican >> Senators<http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213>voted >> against Bush's TARP; a vote against their president and their party. >> In January of 2008, 16 Republican Senators and 28 Republican >> Representatives voted >> Agains<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Economic_Stimulus_Bill_of_2008>t >> >> <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Economic_Stimulus_Bill_of_2008>Bush's >> Stimulus Package. There are in total 17 Republican House Members that have >> voted NO <http://www.rlc.org/2009/03/26/17-courageous/> on every single >> bailout/stimulus since they began in early 2008. And contrary to popular >> belief, Bush was not a fiscally conservative leader. A fiscally >> conservative leader does not put his principles on >> hold<http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_says_sacrificed_free_market_principles_to_save_economy_2?FC=PRCK4>during >> a crisis, not if he truly believes in them. Bush did and even >> admitted to it. There has been no shortage of mad conservatives calling in >> to "conservative" radio shows bashing Bush's liberal spending policies and >> later McCain's (during the election). >> >> There are rino's out there who on one hand are for big government >> intervention while simultaneously supporting the tea party's as a way to gin >> up support against the majority party, *but you cannot make a blanket >> statement *that "Conservatives" are for big government until they find >> themselves out of power. That is true of some republican lawmakers too >> scared of their party and their president to vote their "supposed" >> principle, but was not true of all elected officials and especially their >> constituents. Fair weather Conservatives are no better than their liberal >> counterparts. And you'll find many conservatives Americans who despise >> them. Last Wednesday, a Greenville Tea Party Crowd "Booed >> Mercilessly<http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/18/video-gop-rep-who-voted-for-tarp-booed-mercilessly-at-tea-party/>" >> for like 6 minutes at a Republican Lawmaker (who Voted for Bush's TARP) as >> he tried to give his speech. >> >> The author's claim that these Tea party's were really to oppose Obama's >> social policies mystifies me. As I listened to the speakers at the >> Jefferson Area Tea Party, not a one that I heard even mentioned Obama's >> stance on BAIPA, gun control, gay marriage, or most of his other far left >> social-wacko views...They mostly stuck to fiscal policy, as did the tea >> party's that I was able to watch later on TV and you tube. Maybe the >> author's tea party was different, but I'd like to see proof of that. >> >> And I'll tell you, this may have been a conservative protest, but I saw >> and talked with independents, liberals and libertarians all in attendance >> (the liberals I didn't talk to, but recognized). The best speaker there was >> a Libertarian, John Munchmeyer, who spoke on socialism in America and how to >> revive Economic liberty. He was awesome, got me thinking I might even try >> attending some of his Libertarian meetings (he's the Chairman of the Party >> in our Area). >> >> Jarrad >> >> >> >> >> Lance McCulley wrote: >> >> As I wandered through the crowd at the Denver Tea Party protest last >>> week, I was struck by just how paper-thin is the movement’s opposition to >>> government power. >>> >>> The Tea Party movement is clearly a "Conservative" movement in its >>> membership and core philosophy, and therefore it is not surprising that many >>> of the very same people who now loudly claim to oppose government spending >>> and taxation, were the very same people who, for the last eight years, had >>> been cheerleaders for one of the most profligate administrations in American >>> history. >>> >>> And yet, here they were at the Tea Party, pretending to be principled >>> opponents of government power. >>> >>> Indeed, the existence of the Tea Party events only raises the question of >>> why such events hadn’t ever been organized at some point during the Bush >>> years. After all, for the last eight years, the government has spent record >>> sums of money and all the time, the national debt barreled toward 10 >>> trillion dollars. >>> ... >>> >>> Given the Conservative movement's performance during the last eight >> years, the Conservatives can't possibly be opposed to Obama's taxing and >> spending policies on principle. No, Conservatives start from a personal and >> emotional disdain for Obama, and then search for policies to oppose. If John >> McCain were president, and the government were bailing out its friends at >> the same rate that it is now (which it almost certainly would be), would the >> Conservatives be protesting with nearly as much vigor? Only the most naïve >> among us could claim such a thing with a straight face. >> >>> >>> No, Conservatives oppose Obama because they despise him on a cultural >>> level. Obama represents the culture of the urban coastal leftists who >>> promote social policies the Conservatives loathe, and since he’s a Democrat >>> and not their man, they’ve taken to the streets. On matters of war and >>> fiscal policy, Bush and Obama differ only to the slightest degree, but >>> culturally, the two are worlds apart. >>> ... >>> >>> Conservatives have been doing this since the fifties. In order to enhance >>> the popularity of their cause, they pretend to be the ideology of low-taxes >>> and decreased spending, espousing the many benefits of austere government. >>> >>> Then, as soon as they are in power, they quickly forget all about the >>> ideals of small government and focus on what really matters to them: >>> nationalism, war, and doling out the spoils of political victory to their >>> friends. >>> >> --http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken129.html* >> >> *-Lance >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
