|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 03:38 PM | ||
| sspadowsky | Actually, ranx, that's 1984. | |
| Dec 23rd, 2003 03:06 PM | ||
| ranxer |
Quote:
'war is peace freedom is slavery ignorance is strength' maybe you mean ween the people off government by privatizing everything.. in which case, damn, it's still a crazy race to the bottom. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 01:16 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Regardless of whether Reagan spent it on military or cotton candy, he was still a big spender, and couldn't manage to cut spending like Clinton did. Your notion of creeping conservatism is probably just as silly as the last argument using the word "creeping." These guys love to spend money on what they want, period. They'll also find that ideology takes a back seat when you get into office, and are forced to make substantive policy decisions that require spending (to be fair, ideological Leftists often discover the reverse when they attain office, too). |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:55 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Regan did not spend as much as left-of-center presidents, and much of what he did went to the military. The concept of the poor getting poorer is just plain incorrect. It will take decades. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:41 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Riiiight. Prove that, back it up, substantiate it. Reagan, an icon of the ideological Right, served two terms. Did he do this? Did he limit spending and "ween people off government"??? Whether or not he cut services and screwed the poor doesn't change the fact that he was a big spender. If he wins next year, Bush will not "all of a sudden" down size the budget and become more conservative. Not going to happen. | |
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:36 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
What I meant was that the Republican's want to try undercut Dems at what they do best, and slowly ween the people off of government once they have the power established to do so. Even neo-cons want a relatively small government. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:20 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Your politburo-like reference isn't too far off, IMO. I think even OAO would agree with this, that many in the Republican Party would like to run on the platform of smaler government and less spending, but in essence use that as a way to initiate "social engineering" (qt. in OAO's post). This Bush administration is the biggest big government, "conservative" administration EVER. There's good reason for real ideological conservatives such as Will, Novak, and Safire to be critical of this occupation...... |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 12:02 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Pretty much. But I think there are a large and growing group of people who predate the Neo Cons who are seriously worried about what W is doing to the country. Novak is probably worried for all sorts of reasons I don't agree with, but I think people like him (and Bush Senior) for that matter are actively afraid of what the Grover Norquist wing of the party could do to itself longterm. Norquist sees (and relishes) the establishment of a single party republican domination of the US cemented and lasting from now on. Novak et al might remeber how rapidly Newt Ginrich became distasteful to the American Public once enough light shone on him. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:39 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Holy shit. You're kidding. I was being completely facetious. I could tell it had to be someone conservative, otherwise Max wouldn't have asked for a guess. But I didn't really think it was Novak. Well, I guess Novak can kiss his exclusive leaks from Rove goodbye. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:27 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I don't care! I'll keep believing it was my Georgy baby!!  Er, anyway. I don't know that this means anything. I think there's a rank now for conservative pundits and blabber mouths. The more intelligent, such as Novak, Will, and others, all tend to be at the bottom of that list simultaneously with their higher IQ's. The folks at the top, the Hannitys, the Limbaughs, the O'Reillys, and the Coulters, are all up at the top, and most of them have MUCH higher ratings than those at the bottom. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:22 AM | ||
| mburbank |
It was indeed Bob Novak. What are your thoughts on what this might mean? |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:10 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | George Will. | |
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:05 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
That is a joke. Bob Novak? I kill me. |
|
| Dec 23rd, 2003 11:00 AM | ||
| sspadowsky | Ann Coulter? | |
| Dec 23rd, 2003 10:37 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Guess the Pundit! Can you guess which popular columist recently wrote: "The Bush administration has spent a lot of time saying how well things have gone in Iraq, contending the happy truth has been obscured by negative news media coverage. This is privately described by officials as the ''smoke and mirrors'' technique. Nobody has recognized that more clearly than Jerry Bremer. He was not summoned to Washington when he volunteered for a brief visit Nov. 11. He wanted to tell the president personally just how bad things really were in Iraq and, in fact, got a rare one-on-one meeting with Bush. The inadequate, unrealistic planning for the occupation of Iraq will never be admitted publicly, but it is common knowledge at high levels of the administration. The notion that Iraqi exiles could step in to run the country, pressed on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by his civilian advisory board, was a chimera." |
|
