The Blue "L's" and the Red "C"'s

[GernBlansten]

Talk about being hypersensitive Rooster. You sure get your feathers ruffled easily.

Lets just talk about the size of government. Bush just submitted a budget that swells the size of government to record levels. He funds this with the greatest defecit spending in history. He has created more government agencies staffed by more government employees than any other president. Beavah's comment: And it creates huge waste, because by forcibly concentrating resources in "government" it attracts leeches and villians, and then generates bureaucracy to try to protect against leeches and villians. It eventually reaches the point that the leeches, villians, and those seeking a "better society" are spending other people's children's and grandchildren's money.

[Rooster7]

GB,

 

If its hypersensitive to ask someone to back up an accusation with fact, then I guess Im guilty as charged. But, perhaps youre on the defensive - because you cannot justify your slander against conservatives. And since when do the actions of the current president or any one president represent the ideology of an entire political/social movement. While I admire Bush, I dont think every deed or word of his, in or out of office, necessarily reflects the thoughts those who support him. Nevertheless, lets look at the current budget and how it conforms to big government

 

Bush just submitted a budget that swells the size of government to record levels. He funds this with the greatest deficit spending in history. He has created more government agencies staffed by more government employees than any other president.

 

Gee, do you think the fact that were fighting a worldwide war against terrorism has something to do with the inflated budget? Or, perhaps the fact that the United States was confronted with its worst natural disaster (a.k.a. Katrina) and our federal government is attempting to provide assistance for the recovery effort, contributed a tiny bit to the deficit? These are not attempts to expand government, so to better society. They are exactly the kinds of issues which the federal government should be addressing.

 

From the Chicago Tribune (February 6, 2006):

 

Bush's own priorities are reflected in a proposed Defense Department budget 7 percent higher than this year's - $439 billion, without counting the additional costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is 48 percent more than the yearly defense spending that Bush inherited in 2001.

 

At the same time, Bush is calling on Congress to restrain the spiraling cost of Medicare and other entitlement programs that absorb an increasing share of the national budget, proposing $36 billion in cuts in Medicare's growth over the next five years, largely by limiting payments to doctors and hospitals.

 

The president is also calling on Congress to make his tax cuts permanent, and the White House acknowledges that the costs of war and of the recovery from Hurricane Katrina will contribute to setting a new record budget deficit of $423 billion for 2006.

 

Again, this is not NOT about big government. Its about fighting a war and providing relief from a catastrophic disaster. Anyone who isnt trying to recreate reality to make political points can see the difference.

 

[GernBlansten]

Sorry Rooster, you lost me when you say that GWB doesn't represent the conservative movement. Actually, I agree with you. Republicans aren't conservative anymore. They want open borders. They want to meddle in the affairs of foriegn nations. They run up record setting deficits that our grand children will be saddled with. They abuse the civil rights of the people. They want to be in your bedroom. They want to make medical decisions for you and your family. They claim that conservation is not an energy policy.

What's conservative about that?

 

BTW, the war in Iraq is off budget. It is funded by emergency appropriations. It has cost over $440 Billion so far and is not included in the $2,770,000,000,000 asked for by Bush.

[TheScout]

Bush and the Republicans are definatly more conservative than the Democratic Party. However the Conservative movement, all others has different branches which I believe have only been widened by the success of Conservatism in the last 20 years.

 

The main gulf is between the neoconservative and the paleoconservatice movement. Many call Bush a "NeoCon" but few know what they actually mean. Most of the conservative sentiments here are are old fashioned paleoconservatism.

 

Both thoughts are conservative, just different branches of the philosophy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

[SR540Beaver]

So Rooster, you'd recommend that individuals handle their finances the same way the administration and congress has for the last 5 years? Do you work for Visa?

[johndaigler]

But both sides, especially many L's in academia and education, don't always live by this credo.

 

You can believe what you want, but this question has an answer that is objective and independent of whatever you believe.

 

The mistake here is . . .

 

Yah yah.

 

Da biggest difference between your Blue-L and the Red-C's is this repeated notion that "government" is something separate, independent, and more powerful than "neighbor."

 

Yah, how'd I do there, Red?

 

 

All I'm suggesting is that Beavah should speak for himself about himself. When we feel we can define others and their arguments, we stop listening. I originally gave Beavah credit for his thinking and fairness to lisabob's ideas. My point was that he is close, but he falls short of "Perhaps dat will show where we all may care about da same principles, but politely disagree." My original challenge to Beavah is still valid -- in fact, moreso now.

 

I don't see the humor he says he expects me to see. Anyone who's read my comments about labels, won't be surprised. What we write and what others read isn't guaranteed to be the same. There's no hypocrisy or discourtesy, just different views.

 

I read Rooster's response not as "I, Rooster, agree with Beavah", but as "You've done all us red C's proud with your Red flag waving." No surprise, I struggle with that. It was actually Rooster's post that sent me back to Beavah's with a more critical eye. I re-read Beavah to be less focused on giving his own ideas, and more on vaguely dismissing lisabob's points -- like a disappointed teacher does with a child. Again, I think Beavah is close, but he didn't write what he thinks - only vaguely that lisabob should see things more clearly - more intelligently - more like an adult. Re-read Beavah's post yourself. You can disagree with how I read it, but I doubt there's reason to insult me for my interpretation.

 

"On the other hand, your response ignores all reason, makes a baseless emotional plea, and then accuses Beavah of some how lowering the bar of debate." I'm unemotional about the whole thing. The logic and the reasoning are directly written in my other post. I didn't accuse Beavah of lowering the bar -- I was (and am) pretty confident that other label-users will do that for (to) him. What I said was: he didn't reach the bar he ostensibly set for himself - and that would, sadly, lead to "colored letter mud". I guess I'm not surprised that a few posters would misread my post and angrily (insultingly?) claim that I misread a post. Like I said, what we write and what others read isn't guaranteed to be the same.

 

 

"No need to go all Danish-embassy on me."

If this is supposed to be funny, our senses of humor differ greatly.

 

jd

 

 

[Rooster7]

As President, Bush represents the entire country. For that, I am thankful. For the most part, I appreciate his thoughts and the direction he is leading us. Whether or not every action he takes reflects the conservative movement needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. He is an individual as much as anyone else and has on occasion veered off course from his base.

 

SR540Beaver,

 

You are comparing apples and oranges. Regardless, would you prefer Bush to only fight wars which are economically viable? Was the United States economically irresponsible because we chose to get involved in WWII?

 

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Congress spending like drunken sailors and Bush refusing to use his veto power even once have nothing to do with the money spent on the war. I'm speaking of everything other than that. You realize that the conservative thing to do (whether at home or in government) is to put away savings for emergencies as opposed to blowing everything and then getting caught with your pants down with wars and hurricanes. Wars and hurricane spending aside, spending and the growth of government is at an all time high. Truth is hard to deny.

 

As to the war, comparing Iraq to WWII is truly apples and oranges. Bush had me 100% with Afghanistan following 9/11. He lost me with a total war of choice in Iraq. If Iraq had been a real threat, they would have dome something in the 12 years prior to us going in. The viability of any WMD's they had plus any military hardware they had lessened each year that went by. I do hold Bush responsible for chosing to go to war when it was not needed and spending billions and billions of dollars that could have been spent her at home to secure our borders and make us safer from attacks. Experts say it is not a matter of "if", but "when" we are attacked again. If that attack originates from people who crossed the border while Bush courted the Hispanic vote, his place in history will be a bad one.

[TheScout]

Bush also has federal education funding at an all time high.

[GernBlansten]

This Everlasting War on Terror will drain our economy and send us into the history books to follow the great empires of the Soviet Union, the Romans, the Greeks and the British Empire. The terrorists will win when our economy collapses under the enormous debt we create to "fight" it. I only hope a true conservative comes along to reverse this trend.

[TheScout]

If Sparta and Rome perished, what state can hope to endure forever? Jean Jacques Rousseau

[Rooster7]

SR540Beaver,

 

Wars and hurricane spending aside

 

I cant tell you how ridiculous of a disclaimer that isits beyond comprehension. Perhaps on par with, Other than that, how did you like the play Mr. Lincoln? You might not agree as to why we are there, but you can't ignore the fact that we are there. Its impact on the budget is huge.

 

GB,

 

This Everlasting War on Terror will drain our economy and send us into the history books to follow the great empires of the Soviet Union, the Romans, the Greeks and the British Empire.

 

Id rather see us go broke fighting the good fight, than to hide behind our borders only to squeeze out a few more years of prosperity and to forsake our children to a future saturated in blood, because we were too cowardly and selfish to deal with this menace today. The latter is the history book of choice in which your name will be written, not mine.

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Let me help your comprehension skills. We can do nothing about natural disasters. We can do something about wars of choice. The point is that even if those did not factor into the equation as "extras", the congress and administration is growing our deficeit thru spending and growing the size of government at a pace never before seen in US history. It is not happening because of hurricanes and wars, but along side them.

 

The Democrats stayed in power for decades thru spending and giving the American people all sorts of things. The Republicans harped about it for years. Now that they are in power, they had to figure out how to maintain that power and realized that they can only do it by doing the same thing their adversaries had done. Pork and plenty of it. Pork on top of paying for a war and natural disasters.

[evmori]

Instead of being a blue L or a red C may I please be a green I?

 

Thank you

[SemperParatus]

...or Yellow P...