-
Website
http://www.urbanconservative.com/ -
Original page
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/06/23/why-this-conservative-is-voting-democrat-in-this-years-2008-presidential-election/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
For once, I'm speechless. That takes quite a bit of doing.
condensed version.
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and
would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were:
1. The invention of beer, and
2. The invention of the wheel.
The wheel was invented to get man to the beer, and the beer to
the man.
These facts formed the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct
subgroups:
1. Liberals
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the
beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were
invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to
be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were
formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at
night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as
the Conservative movement.
Other men wh o were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned
to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the
sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the
beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The
rest became known as girlie-men.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication
of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the
Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide
all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the
largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant.
Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most
prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women
have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal
injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are
liberals.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still
provide for their women.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen,
lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate
executives, athletes, golfers, and generally anyone who works productively.
Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a
living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the
producers and decide what to do with the production.
Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans.
That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were
coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a
business of trying to get more for nothing.
Here ends today's lesson in world history.
It should be noted that a liberal may have a momentary urge to
angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.
A conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the
absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other
true believers. .
Hey, what's with the 2 + 2 question on this comment form? Simple intelligence test?
And legalizing gay marriage will lead directly to government regulated NAMBLA. Perhaps we can roll marriage all the way back to same races only...and if you happen to be of mixed heritage now you are out of luck.
It's also fun that you are comparing the Iraq war (started under false pretenses) to wars against Communist superpowers or even when another country's airforce decides to bomb our military.
And I suppose you also want to piss on the first amendment. I mean what were the founding fathers thinking with the whole separation of church and state thing. They must have said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" because they WANTED us all to be Christian. Everyone else needs to beat it. Who cares that early settlers came here to escape religious oppression.
I also like how you are trying to preempt criticism by acknowledging that your comments are "over the top". You can place your tongue firmly against your cheek, but anyone who reads this blog knows that the opinions expressed in this post (though colorfully described) are exactly how you feel about the "liberal mind".
Yes UC.....republicans have made American Corporations Great!
@Estreitta de Kluetz - not sure, but the avatar is based on the email address you use for MyBlogLog.
-To take care of my old mom(who always votes republican!)
Me? You know i'm voting for the skinny kid w/ big ears.
Read that carefully..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Is a nativity scene a law? Is a statue of the ten commandments a law? Is the mention or implication of God on various government implements a law?
I honestly have no idea where this whole thing came from; even under a loose constructionist doctrine, the word law is immutably irrelevant to anything the government is being ACLU'd for doing.
So I guess our founding fathers intended all along for the first amendment to be toothless. Choosing to draw the distinction that literally means that the first amendment doesn't allow or prohibit anything.
There is nothing wrong with government displaying religious symbols in a public place. If the majority of people in any area want to have a public display of Baby Jesus, or budda they are allowed to do it. But the government is not allowed to tell everyone that they will be Christians, or that Musliums are not allowed to have a place of whorship.
But for some one who would spend 10,000 extra on a hybrid car thinking that they are going to save money because they don't have to buy as much gas, I would not expect you to truly understand any of that.
You appear to be echoing my point (a little). The separation of church and state was intended to do just what you describe, allow for choice to practice any religion, or none at all. To be honest I don't really care about public displays, but it puts the government on a very slippery slope of actively or passively endorsing one religion over another. It's easy for Christians to ask "who does it hurt" because they hold the majority position, but take those same people and plant them in a Muslim, Buddhist, or Jewish community and see how they feel then about their preferred practices being blown off. They'd likely feel a little isolated and unwelcome.
And your hybrid rant is absurd. Yes you pay a premium up front for the car, but not 10K over a comparable non-hybrid. If you lock gas in at $4 (generous estimate for your argument) and drive 15K a year, you won't make back your money in the first year...but you will in year 2 or 3. If gas goes up, it'll be even faster. Factor in higher resale and the various financing discounts many lenders offer on hybrids, and you come out even further ahead.
But I guess you prefer to look only at the short term. Hope that works out for you.
On the other hand, back to the religion, we won't establish a religion, but it doesn't mean that the minority religions shall ruin the fun of the majority. Give me a nativity scene on Christmas on the front steps of SF's City Hall. I'd be amazed if it could actually happen.
Alas, trial lawyers run this nation, de facto, and after this election, they'll officially run it.
Good rant, UC
Also, Christianity seems to be singled out in these first amendment attacks. If I ever see a Muslim foot wash in a public area (as I'm fairly certain have been implemented somewhere), I'ma raise hell up in here...not because I care either way (I'm not a Nazi, you see), but more to certifiably out the anti-Christian sentiment in this nation.
On hybrids, they are a perfectly suitable transitional technology, but our current battery technology has just as negative an impact on the environment as fossil fuels. With a better storage medium, hybrids will be just dandy. They don't solve the fossil fuel problem, though; they simply curb it. Though I guess the new storage medium would make pure electrics pretty viable.
You and urban love to make that grand leap about what people really mean. Being pro-"separation of church and state" doesn't make someone anti-Christian. Because Christianity is by far the dominant religion in the US, that is the one that gets singled out in most examples. It's not that people protesting specifically dislike Christians or Christianity...it's just the one with the largest following of supporters who have the misguided belief that the 1st Amendment was intended to provide Americans with the Freedom to be Christians....rather than the Freedom to choose for themselves.
You make it sound so tragic that people would be deprived of a nativity scene, but what I want to know is why people feel the need to insist it be on government property in the first place (public doesn't have to be government). Ask the average American how many times they visit City Hall in a given year. Answer will be ZERO for almost everyone, and maybe a handful of times for the rest (non employees of course). Yet somehow we NEED to have the religious display somewhere no one would go otherwise?
It's nothing more than a power play by both sides trying to make a statement.
It does not matter what way you try to defend it, the bottom line is that the intention was not for religion (no matter what the religion) to not be celebrated in Government offices. A better example then a nativity scene, is the complete harasment that prayer, and Christianity has faced in schools.
The UCLA, and all left wing Anti-Christian organizations, demand that coporations bend over backwords to give every accomidation to Muslims. To include letting them stop working 6 times a day to pray, and to provide special prayer rooms. Next thing you know it will be mandatory for all Americans kids to take classes on the Muslim religion while they are not even allowed to express their own religion in school.
Not to mention that the idea of Creationsiom is illegal to teach in schools, so much for open mindedness. All of this has taken place under the banner and battle cry of seperation of Church and State. So no it is not good enough any more, we need to go back to the true meaning this, and that was that the Government will not recognize any church or religion as the Government religion. Again so that there was not Church of the USA like there was the Church of Egland.
But like most things the libral Kool-aid drinkers miss understand the intention, or even the letter of the law, and make sure that they make it an abomination. Just like the liberals did with Marriage. Keep in mind Marriage is a cration of religion, and more specificly Christianity. The Government in it's effort to promote famlies, and family values added tax benifets to married couples, more and more things came along such as health insurance and the like.
I suppose since the Libral Supream court said that Rapping a child is not bad enough to kill someone for, maybe these rappiest will just be able to marry them some day, after all the UCLA goes out of there way to defend MAMBLA every chance they get.
Well I suppose I got off topic a little bit, but while you and your ilk think that UC is just being way over the top, the fact of the matter is in many cases this is exactly how many librals think and act, and don't tell me people are not that stupid. Because Barrack has all you librals thinking that Taxing the Oil Companies even more will lower Gas prices, what moron came up with that idea.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could...
Your prayer in school example is even more ridiculous. I've got nothing against the idea of teaching religion in school (I think it's important that kids learn about all beliefs to better understand others) but when you teach one and not the others you are effectively endorsing that one. If you want to say that these things are ok if the overall community wants it, what do you say to the Christian family growing up in an almost exclusively Jewish area of Long Island? Should those kids be taught only the Jewish beliefs in school?
There are plenty of places that people get to CHOOSE to go to. Places people CHOOSE to gather. Public schools are not one of them, so I don't see why it's so important that we extend the reach of one group's beliefs into that area too.
You want to insist that it doesn't hurt anyone, but you line up 5 kindergartners and praise 4 of them for being of one faith, and ignore the 5th (no admonishment...just the absence of praise) and you are indirectly telling him that there is something wrong with him.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
-Thomas Jefferson
I saw the headline of this post in the RSS feed this morning and I clicked on it enraged. I was coming here to rant and rave against voting for Obama... and then I started reading. BRILLANT POST. I imagine you had to buy a new keyboard after this post. I could feel the ranting and that's why I read you. I dig passion and I did freedom.
I'll be posting a link on my blog later today and probably on Freindfeed. Good stuff my man.
I saw the headline in my RSS feed and I came here all upset that you were going to protest vote for Obama... and then I read one of the best posts I've seen in long while. I bet you needed a new keyboard after that tirade. I dig it man. I'll be posting a link on my blog and friendfeed a bit later today.
Keep up the good work.
Tsudohnimh - KnowtheNetwork.com
An aside, perhaps Urban isn't aware of the modified translation of tolerance - it means not just you have your belief and I have mine; but I must not only acknowledge your belief, as well as consider it equal and promote it over my belief. That's the 'new' tolerance ("Criminalization of Christianity" by Janet Folger)
Dave.
Isn't interesting that your sarcastic headline actually had Tsudohnimh believing it was possible that you would vote for Barack Obama? You are going to see some prominent republicans come out for Barack in the months to come (Hagel, Powell) for real. I'm particularly looking forward to Powell's endorsement. That will hit Old Man River right between the eyes. Then someone like Jenna Bush's endorsement will just be piling on at that point. There will be evangelicals too. My point is, given a choice, there really is no choice. Take a look at your own blog. On the current home page McCain's name appears exactly once (not including his paid ad). And that is related to a weak attempt at humor related to Susan Sarandon. If a conservative blog's homepage has Susan Sarandon's name as much as the republican nominee for president's name, that speaks volumes for your candidate. I've said it before and I'll say it again, try making the case for Father Time. He is your horse in the race for better or worse. Your lame sarcasm is but is but a fly on the poop of my horse. In the meantime, it's fun to watch republicans spin their wheels looking for traction on any of these lame arguments you have made here. How has that been working for you so far, BTW? Fund raising, polls, enthusiasm? Have you made a dent anywhere? Oh, you're waiting for the 527s? Let's hope they can cobble together the half a billion dollars they will be going against.
Anyway, good luck with the comedy career.
Dave.
Thanks for the kinds words. Yes, as simonesdad2008 says, I am working on pursuing a career as a comedian!
@Fouser
I am not sure what your point is regarding tolerance and Islam.
as usual, your argument is weak. All you do is judge me for the content on this blog. As I have told you many many times before, I am no journalist, political pundit or expert in politics. I am one person with an opinion; and I choose to write about the topics I want to write about. I am deeply sorry that you don't like the fact that Susan Sarandon is on the home page, really. I may not be able to sleep at night.
Have I made a dent? Not sure, but at least I am trying; which is more than what you are doing.
You miss my point. I'm not judging you one bit. I used to admittedly but then I remembered you are a conservative. I already know what you think. My point about Susan Sarandon and John McCain on your blog is that there is zero enthusiasm for McCain. Even in places like this which would be inclined to at least show his name, he is tied with Ms. Sarandon in appearances. That to me that is hilarious! And you know what, you are right. My arguments are weak. It gets boring beating a dead McCain horse. Barack doesn't need me to get converts because he is brilliantly managing his own campaign. That, coupled with Father Time's daily bumbles makes this too easy. Old Man River is doing my work for me. It's more fun to stand back and watch him self destruct a little more everyday. I think you and others forget that Barack endured a grueling primary. All of his dirty laundry is out there. Barack's campaign is well organized, well financed and his supporters are enthusiastic. His presidential run will be studied and copied going forward from now on. On both sides, I may add.
Stop telling me or anyone who criticizes you or your blog what you are not. This is YOUR blog. Own it. Be proud of it. I agree with 0% of what you say but I like the site and I encourage others to visit. I respect you but I would respect you more if you just said these are my words or my opinions and my blog. Forget the "I'm not a journalist/pundit/expert" crap. Tell us what you are. Nobody cares what you aren't. This is intended to be me, simonesdad2008, telling you, UC, keep up the good work but leave the excuse making behind. And just because you think my arguments are weak, I'm going to step up my game a little. I admit to sinking to the level of the usual discourse on here. That's my gift to you.
According to OntheIssues.org the following exchange occurred at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Los Angeles California:
Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That's right.
OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.
-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008
The Bush Tax Cuts
"And the Bush tax cuts--people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives."
-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007
Who Needs Tax Cuts?
"We heard the President say he wants to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans permanent, when we know that at a time of war and economic hardship, the last thing we need is a permanent tax cut for Americans who don't need them and weren't even asking for them."
Ahh, Obama.. we love you
Capitalism and the market is holy and perfect. Despite what my basic economics textbook says, it has no flaws.
This country needs more religion and jesus so we can become a theocracy like Saudi Arabia. Democracy is so overrated. Homosexuals need to be stoned.
Women and feminists are wrong. Thousands of years of history prove they aren't capable of being equal to men.
Global warming isn't real and i'm willing to bet my and your grandchildren on it. So what if the caps are melting and the polar bears are starving. Those aren't real signs, they're just liberal media lies. Even though I don't really understand science, I'm more sure of it than those highly trained scientists are.
Speaking of science, there is no other field more overrated. No wonder kids these days avoid it. Even they know to turn off their brains and use their hearts more. Faith triumphs over reason every time.
I like to have my cake and eat it too. That's why I want to lower taxes and continue to spend and spend on war, farm subsidies, and other forms of welfare that benefit rich people like myself. Someone will have to pick up the tab, it just won't be me. It'll be those liberal voting youths.
War is wonderful. Especially unnecessary ones. And even better when I'm not the one to fight it. Again that's the job for America's liberal voting youth. They're so unpatriotic anyway. But its nice that they spill their blood over my imagined paranoia.
Civil liberties have to come to an end. Why? Because I'm scared of a cave man half a world away. Good thing we have warrantless wiretaps and got rid of habeas corpus. Torture is not cruel and unusual. Any time those liberal pussies scream "Constitution!!", just snap back "Terrorists!!". It works amazing well.
So you see folks, that's why my vote goes to McCain even though he's not a real conservative. He's a little too liberal for my tastes but at least he's better than that black guy. It just wouldn't be the WHITE house now would it :-) He fought in one losing war and that's the experience we need to fight this one and win it. He admits he doesn't understand the economy. But that's okay since Bush didn't understand anything either and his presidency is the height of american power. It shows in our weak dollar, outsourced jobs, rising unemployment, housing crunch, credit crisis, unjust war, mismanaged Iraq war, a resurgent Taliban, escalation with Iran, North Korea getting the bomb, crumbling infrastructure, inability to handle federal emergencies, weakening american influence, domestic spying, civil liberties trampled, largest federal government ever, rising inequality, broken immigration, stagflation, high oil prices, etc. McCain won't either. And that's what matters and that's the main reason why he should get our vote.
ok, im really sorry everyone. I am a recovering democrat and I am really trying to understand politics. Hollywood can't help me. dailyKos won't accept my sexual tendencies and I can't afford a therapist. I am really really sorry if I offended anyone on this site. I really need help. help me.
very clever, but not as good as the post. Try something original; maybe start your own blog or something ... and if you really think conservatives think this way, you have a long journey ahead of you.
Happy 4TH of July to all. Please be safe if you are traveling the roads this weekend.
Do you think I haven't absorbed the fact that you and your so-called conservative friends have sold out? Do you think I have not grasped the idea that your conservative principles are only present when convenient? Do you think no one sees that conservatives can be brought into the fold by simply putting an R next to the candidates name? Do you really think McCain has spit in your face time and time again to lure votes from the left? Do you call 5 years and billions of dollars and thousands of lives for a fragile "democracy" that will revert to an Iran-like theocracy the moment we leave largely successful? In other words do you consider the lives and money we spent to convert an Iranian enemy into an Iranian friend mission accomplished? Can you really chalk up these economic times that W has presided over to the media? Do you really think there is a chance history will be kind to W?
It's not that I don't absorb anything. I just want to reinforce to you and others what the conservative label has been relegated to....a disrespected, unimportant, taken for granted, unfortunate, nuisance constituency. One that has to be neither accounted for nor courted. One that will come into the republican fold without even a fight. One that claims to stand on its principles but is really just another voting block that can be bought and sold. I absorb that your rhetoric and standards are hollow and phony. I absorb that you think this country hasn't been bludgeoned enough the last 7 years and you want to inflict more pain. I absorb that the more I get you cons to talk about why you are voting for Old Man River the less credible you become (Ding! That's why I keep coming back to it and you fall for it every time). I suggest you do real conservatives a favor and just call yourselves republicans or political whores or poseurs.
Let me ask you, honestly, if this were Bush running for a second term right now, would you vote for him? You could have any other candidate you wanted as an alternative. Would you still vote for Bush?
Speaking of GOD I listened to a christian preacher on TV that speachs to GOD. We need leaders like him . The fish people in this country need to be in charge.
I just wanted you to know I support you totally.
the title of this post, for example... naturally should be: "...why i am voting democratic" or even "...why i am voting for the democrat".
right wing talk show personalities think it amusing to use "democrat in place of democratic to show a lack of respect for those holding views that differ from their own- what it actually shows is that these individuals, rather than trying to actually address serious issues that face this country and seek thoughtful answers as to what we might do as concerned americans- they would rather create division and distance, ridicule rather than reason. this is not just unfortunate, it is precisely the reason (this is the part where you hard-core conservatives need to listen to gain some understanding) why the obama campaign has generated the tremendous interest that it has - interest from across the political spectrum... because people are fed up with these divisive tactics being used constantly- name calling, misrepresentations, put-downs, ridicule, race-baiting, and flat out lies just to get one rung taller on their ambition ladder.
but... back to my original reason for commenting to this post... other readers, please note: if you expect to be taken seriously (note here i did not say "serious") it would be wise for those of you to (not "too"...different word...different meaning) check their (not "there") writings...you're (not your) apt to show that you just might know (not "no") what you are speaking about no matter whose (not who's) comment or which (not "witch") post effected (not "affected") you.
carry on.
Know yoo kan goe bak too my.barrackobama and kontinu two spred ur librl retorik.
: )
it's no small wonder why mc cain has practically twisted himself into a pretzel over the interest the rest of the world have in our next president: barack obama. won't it be wonderful to be proud of our president once again!
oh, and mr. uc, you are welcome. additionally, i must correct you on one item once again... since you are the age of my son - you'll understand: i am not arrogant, just smarter, more experienced, better educated, more traveled, more artistic, and have a sense of humor that does not require foul language, racial, religious, or sexual stereotypes and put-downs of another human being to be funny.
Any way who cares what the Germans think of Barack, if I wanted to live in a country with an acepted German leader then I would move to Germany. It is a fun place to visit, but again like most Nations on that side of the world, way to socialist for my tast.
What Bling, not getting enough from the Government alreayd, need it to carry your sorry ass the rest of your life.
You Liberals, make me sick that you need Government to hold your hand. Maybe if you where not to bussy with your noses so high up in the air, you would see that the working class that you want to support you, is getting a bit tired of it.
"You voted for Bush? How embarrassing."
and, Jarrod, how base of you to suggest that anyone not participating in your type of preferred amusements would automatically make them "fridge" (i am just going to assume he tried to say frigid and not calling me a refrigerator) , no "fun" (if your meaning of fun is to hurt others- i guess i am not at all "fun"), or a "prude" (an odd name-call coming from someone who does not just live in the past, he lives in a land of "never was").
Jarrod, when was the last time you got out in your street and repaired the road? when was the last time you asked for police assistance? i think you had best stop using those freeways since these are yet another form of "socialism". please do not even give consideration towards using local or national parks. if your house catches fire, put it out yourself. amazing...just amazing the ignorance that is displayed by your comments.
now you have your underwear in a knot because obama has gained the respect and captured the imagination of not just germany, but europe, the middle east, and the far corners of the world.
as you can see, folks...Jarrod here is yet another of the left-behinds - the world is quickly passing him by.
I'm a volunteer fire fighter in my local community putting in over 70 hours a month. I'm a member of the National Guard and just return from a two year stint in Iraq. So please don't even bother trying to lecture me with your dribble.
I have no problem paying taxes so the Government can fund roads, and water, or other real Community and national projects. I do how ever have an issue paying into a government safety net for the stupid, and terminally lazy.
Congress just voted in a 300Billion legislation so bail out these people who can't pay their mortgage. I know how dare I everyone had a right to a home. NO THEY DON'T. And they sure as hell don't have a right to use my money to pay for it.
But since they did not plan a head to make sure they had plenty of savings set aside in case of hard times, or they where just to stupid to realize they could not afford what they where buying, we now have to bail them out again. So yes I get my underwear in a knot when Barrack runs around telling the world that we are ready to be socialist just like the rest of them. Promising the Stupid and the lazy more of the hard workers money.
Look I'm sure your a swell gal, and you mean well, but the bottom line is if you want to help people then by all means go out and help people, there are plenty of charities that would love for you to volunteer. But do it with your time or money not with the rest of ours.
MOVING ON.
Public roads are socialist? Public POLICE forces are socialist? Are you completely stupid or just hoping nobody will call your bluff? To be fair, a mentally challenged lay person could see the general definition of socialism -- public or governmental administration of the means of production and distribution -- as encompassing the road system, but the POLICE force? Give me a break.
You're also completely off base in asserting that Jarrod and his ilk are being left behind. Conservatism is making a comeback in many European countries. Italy is the current front runner; she is currently in the process of systematically deporting every illegal immigrant who dared venture into the big boot. To be blunt, socialism is in decline, not conservatism. Don't worry, though. At least you know you're completely ignorant of global affairs now. Ciao!
the bush administration has shredded what was the republican party. and made fiscal responsibiltiy a joke. (not to mention expanding the powers of the presidency, collaborated with the justice department to engage in illegal activities, approved torture, rendition, illegal wire taps and so much more.) there is good reason why republicans are distancing themselves from him.
..if and when the democrats are seen to be headed in the wrong direction, they too will be removed. it's the way things work.
It's easy to say that government spending always goes up, but if you look at a chart of the size of our government as a percentage of our GDP, the line is completely flat along the X-axis until the 1930's when the new deal kicks in. That is when government spending starts constantly going up.
Your theory of taxation is also highly debatable; the conservative theory is that lowering taxes will basically leave more money in the pockets of the people. They'll turn around and spend that money in the private sector, most of which has small taxes on it. So instead of simply giving a substantial portion straight to the government, it gets as much or more money from various sales taxes in addition to the economic benefits of increased spending. Finally, the government gets more taxes from the business that grew as a result of the spending. That isn't to say that I'm right and you're wrong, but there is hardly a scientific law of economics. We have to try stuff and see what works, and Bush's tax laws haven't made the economy suffer in the least.
Deregulation of government (which includes the repeal of social programs) would certainly be a tough transition, but it would be beneficial in the long term. All regulation does is push business to unregulated markets with the exception of the one or two companies with enough pre-existing clout to stay above water. What's that spell for the people? Low or no choice, and a huge potential for shortages and price spikes. Deregulation will put many more jobs onto our soil, which will help those who will suffer under the lack of welfare programs.
I will, however, agree that spending under Bush has been ridiculous. Bush can only approve spending bills, however, after they've been approved by Congress. Both parties have failed in the fiscal responsibility category. During these elections, if you have a Congressional candidate running on a platform of fiscal responsibility, let him in. I know I will.
The problem with taxes and government spending is that people have the false expectation that the government should run like a business; a small business according to conservatives. You will always be disappointed and dismayed if you think like that. There are no businesses that can literally print their own money or borrow without limits or expectation of paying back. Remember when Clinton and Gingrich got into a pissing match back in the 90's and the federal government "shut down?" What really happened? A few national parks didn't open for a day or two. That's like threatening Microsoft by shutting down their employee break room. And if you think we the people have control of taxes by our vote and elected officials...well let's just say that's an interesting interpretation on your part. Our democracy was long ago perverted by special interests and big money. Your earnest, fiscal and social conservative candidate doesn't get elected to federal office without plugging into the party machine. I'm talking both parties here. On the state and local level some outsiders get in here and there. Think Jesse Ventura. Even self-financed candidates can not break the machine. It is too difficult and too expensive for most honest and earnest candidates to get into Congress. You've said it yourself and many have echoed your sentiments, McCain is your lesser of two evils candidate. You have the expectation that he will be fiscally conservative by virtue of the (R) next to his name even though you know it's not true. McCain has sold out that (R) time and time again. What in the world makes you think he won't do it to you again? Bush, while socially conservative by every measure left the Evangelicals in the dust once elected and presided over government spending that would make a democrat blush. He had an (R) next to his name too (one could argue what that (R) stood for). Remember Bush Sr. and "read my lips?" Keep in mind, every big time politician's job is to get elected, period. There is very little pretense left about that anymore. You may be right that the line was crossed back in the 30's somewhere but you can't put toothpaste back in the tube.
And just for grins, can any of you cons out there give me an example of a conservative government or society that is out there. One that unfailingly adheres to your social and fiscal pillars and plans. You guys are always screaming about socialism and calling people socialists. Well there are some socialist countries out there that we know about. Where is that lean, mean conservative society that you aspire to? Just curious.
Seriously, with what you're saying about politicians being in bed with lobbies, do you REALLY want to give them more broad reaching authority to do as they wish with our money? They're finding plenty of financial sink-holes already. They won't just divert funds once we give them more stuff to spend our money on; they'll require more of us.
Which brings on the other issue: we know how the government currently is. I'm talking about how the government *should* be. You say the machine's too big to break. Well, I respectfully disagree. The problem is that we're too disorganized and divisive to unite over any issues. If we could organize and demand reform, it would happen. We just aren't yelling loud enough.
PS: I, perhaps even "we," don't expect anything of McCain except to tow the party line, which at least runs perpendicular to our views rather than flatly against them.
You might add the remainder of the First Amendment ,"... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What strikes me at this moment is the almost mystical perception libeals have of detecting the initial hints of conservatism, religiosity, and a whiff of right and wrong. Unlike conservatives who blunder blindly past the most outrageous instances of liberalism, the liberal rivals the great white being able to scent a finite parts per million of conservatism at which point they reflexively scream "unfair" much as those old time tag teams. One would have the hapless conservative in a choke hold while the other was kicking him, the ref helplessly counting some infraction on the pair while the other conservative was dutifully standing outside the ring watching with detachment. The upshot - T. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists was the right of Christians to exercise their faith without interferance from the government versus our current situation with the law standing on its head and "government" rejecting any notion of religion except the state religion, that being Secular Humanism. Doubt me? Check out the Humanist Manifesto One and Two - yes, it is declared by its founders as a religion!! Humanism along with that other religion - Evolution. Check out Charley Darwin's dying thoughts on the matter. Their belief - nothing plus time = our current intricacies such as the human eye and visual perception. Dave.
Relative to "an imaginery friend from an old book" - could you mean Allah from the Quran?? Oh, that's right - he's just a black stone talked about by an illiterate mad man called Muhammad from the depths of a cave. The result (versus 66 books over several thousand years by multiple authors) has been abrogated, re-written, and even now talks about killing anyone who doesn't submit to its 7th Century ideology. The alternative to the Quran written by such intellectuals as Moses, Paul, David, etc. referencing the main character in every book from Genesis to the Revelation namely Jesus Christ. His death ,unknown in Genesis 3, describes his crucifixion long before the Romans invented it, and his completed Revelation ends the book, except for the usual maps. The Quran doesn't mention its founder but the Bible does, the son of Abraham by Hagar namely Ishmael, his counter part being Isaac by Sarah. Before you dismiss that "old book" , better read it for it will some day judge you - and you may be " found wanting"! Dave.
Or just click on it here May 15th Prophecy
Do you still disbelieve the 100% accuracy of God Word?
Just as it told you bank after bank would fail !!
Now do you SEE?