Neo-Conned

[Big Blue Machin]

Democrats are pretend Repubilcans. But there are difference. Republicans are very frank with their words. Democrats invent new ways to say something.

 

[freeandfun1]

Democrats are pretend Repubilcans. But there are difference. Republicans are very frank with their words. Democrats invent new ways to say something.

Is that a nice way of saying that Democrats continually lie? If so, I totally agree.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Yes, yes it is.

 

[William Joyce]

Sorry, I could only clearly think of Ford because I read his autobiography.

Man, you must have a lot of time on your hands!

Ron Paul is great. One of the few members of Congress who actually understands and respects the Constitution. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is also great --- one of the few speaking out against the immigration that is killings us.

Tancredo/Paul 2008!

 

[Max Power]

If they are the same thing, why do they disagree with one another so vociferously?

It's all a show, a farce, a facade, if you will. They disagree so vociferously over things that are essentially meaningless, like gay marriage. I haven't heard gay marriage mentioned once by the politicians since the election.

What about real issues? Why aren't they arguing over the ballooning deficit, expanding government (both fiscally and intruding on our freedoms)? Because they don't disagree at all. BOTH parties want big government in every meaning of the word.

Truly, the chairman of the D party uses language that is hardly complimentary of the R's.

It's fake.
Bush and Clinton were such opposites, right? But now they're the best of friends.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=889121&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

To me they seem to have a fundamentally different philosophy not only on how this country should be run internally, but also on how this country should conduct itself on the world stage.

Right... like how Bush was against gay marriage, and Kerry was less against gay marriage. Or how Bush was pro Iraq war, and Kerry was pro Iraq war. FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
(BTW, I only picked Kerry because he was the contender last year, not for any other reason)

Yes, they are both establishment institutions, quite entrenched in power and tradition, but are they essentially the same thing? I don't think so.

Can you provide examples on how they are the same?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-17-highway-bill_x.htm
Bill passes, 89 - 11.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny09_weiner/030106show.html
Bill passes, 381-41.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Bill passes, 77-23.

Two of those three bills included the expansion of the federal government... so I'm sure we're all REAL surprised that they passed by such overwhelming majorities.

They're all republicrats.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

The D's remain the true big government party. The party that believes that the answer to all problems is more government and more government spending.

yeah, spending money that we don't have.

liberals have this 'teenager with his first credit card' mentality...oohh FREE MONEY to spend how we want on crap that's not needed!

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Sorry, I could only clearly think of Ford because I read his autobiography.

ford has an autobiography? that thing must be a bank-vault door stopper...

 

[Max Power]

yeah, spending money that we don't have.

REPUBLICANS have this 'teenager with his first credit card' mentality...oohh FREE MONEY to spend how we want on crap that's not needed!

I fixed your post for you.

 

[William Joyce]

It's all a show, a farce, a facade, if you will. They disagree so vociferously over things that are essentially meaningless, like gay marriage. I haven't heard gay marriage mentioned once by the politicians since the election.

What about real issues? Why aren't they arguing over the ballooning deficit, expanding government (both fiscally and intruding on our freedoms)? Because they don't disagree at all. BOTH parties want big government in every meaning of the word.

You are right about this. The Republicans in power call this "governing conservatism," but it's really just big governmentism. I for years bemoaned this, read "The Road to Serfdom" and all that, supported libertarians, etc.

But it's hopeless. It's like a giant spinning wheel nobody can stop. Because I think deep down, nobody really wants to stop it. Loyalty to smaller government is really an idealistic thing that just doesn't motivate people to fight. It's the people getting the government money who have the incentive to fight to keep the status quo --- and do they.

It'll just keep growing like a tick until it pops.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

You are right about this. The Republicans in power call this "governing conservatism," but it's really just big governmentism. I for years bemoaned this, read "The Road to Serfdom" and all that, supported libertarians, etc.

But it's hopeless. It's like a giant spinning wheel nobody can stop. Because I think deep down, nobody really wants to stop it. Loyalty to smaller government is really an idealistic thing that just doesn't motivate people to fight. It's the people getting the government money who have the incentive to fight to keep the status quo --- and do they.

It'll just keep growing like a tick until it pops.

How right you are!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You are right about this. The Republicans in power call this "governing conservatism," but it's really just big governmentism. I for years bemoaned this, read "The Road to Serfdom" and all that, supported libertarians, etc.

But it's hopeless. It's like a giant spinning wheel nobody can stop. Because I think deep down, nobody really wants to stop it. Loyalty to smaller government is really an idealistic thing that just doesn't motivate people to fight. It's the people getting the government money who have the incentive to fight to keep the status quo --- and do they.

It'll just keep growing like a tick until it pops.

Liberal big governmentism is more suppressive than republican big governmentism. Liberals big governmentism is also combined with the racist agenda of changing the racial mix of society.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Liberal big governmentism is more suppressive than republican big governmentism. Liberals big governmentism is also combined with the racist agenda of changing the racial mix of society.

Liberals aren't racist.

 

[Annie]

Liberals aren't racist.

yes they are.

 

[Gunny]

Liberals aren't racist.

Are you kidding? They throw fluff without substance at minorities and promise all sorts of changes they never intend to attempt every four years to get a vote.

What have the Dems actually done for minorites post-LBJ?

 

[Max Power]

Liberal big governmentism is more suppressive than republican big governmentism. Liberals big governmentism is also combined with the racist agenda of changing the racial mix of society.

This post would make sense if republicans weren't equal to liberals.

 

[Max Power]

Are you kidding? They throw fluff without substance at minorities and promise all sorts of changes they never intend to attempt every four years to get a vote.

What have the Dems actually done for minorites post-LBJ?

What have the Repubs done?

 

[Zhukov]

It's fake.
Bush and Clinton were such opposites, right? But now they're the best of friends.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=889121&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

First, you believe that photo-op propaganda B.S.? Second, it is possible to be friends with someone with whom you disagree with politically, or didn't you know that?

Right... like how Bush was against gay marriage, and Kerry was less against gay marriage. Or how Bush was pro Iraq war, and Kerry was pro Iraq war. FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.

"Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time."

That's your idea of pro-Iraq war?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-17-highway-bill_x.htm
Bill passes, 89 - 11.

"Efforts to pass a highway bill have stalled for nearly two years while Congress debates how much to spend. The last six-year program ended Sept. 30, 2003, but it has been extended six times to keep highway aid flowing to the states. The current temporary extension expires May 31."

Two years and six extensions? You'd think people who are essentially the same could formulate legislation a bit faster.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny09_weiner/030106show.html
Bill passes, 381-41.

The Presiden'ts pet project for which he encouraged congressional support from the R's, because it was what he campaigned on. Naturally, the D's would support any increase in Federal spending on education.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Bill passes, 77-23.

All but two 23 Nay's were D's (one R, one I who always votes D), or roughly half of their representation of that body. That is what we call statistically significant.

They're all republicrats.

So, the GOP has been around since Lincoln, the D's since before that. And these three examples are all you came up with? You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced.

 

[Max Power]

First, you believe that photo-op propaganda B.S.? Second, it is possible to be friends with someone with whom you disagree with politically, or didn't you know that?

You believe that partisan propaganda B.S.?
Did you hear what Clinton said about Kerry and Bush? He thought they both were "great!"

"Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time."

That's your idea of pro-Iraq war?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
That's all that matters.

"Efforts to pass a highway bill have stalled for nearly two years while Congress debates how much to spend. The last six-year program ended Sept. 30, 2003, but it has been extended six times to keep highway aid flowing to the states. The current temporary extension expires May 31."

Two years and six extensions? You'd think people who are essentially the same could formulate legislation a bit faster.

So they're debating about how far exactly they want to shove a pole up our asses, and you claim that's a fundamental difference?

The Presiden'ts pet project for which he encouraged congressional support from the R's, because it was what he campaigned on. Naturally, the D's would support any increase in Federal spending on education.

So when the Republicans increase federal spending, you give them an excuse, but when the Dems do it, you think they just want to expand government for you.

Just take away the excuse and you've almost taken off your blindfold. Both parties want to expand government.

All but two 23 Nay's were D's (one R, one I who always votes D), or roughly half of their representation of that body. That is what we call statistically significant.

In case you hadn't noticed, the D's occupy more than 23 seats in the Senate.

So, the GOP has been around since Lincoln, the D's since before that. And these three examples are all you came up with? You'll excuse me if I'm not convinced.

It took me 30 seconds, and forgive me for being frank, but you're not worth spending any longer on researching a post.
Because you enjoy buying into the partisan nonsense. That's exactly why you give R's an excuse for doing the same thing D's do.

 

[Zhukov]

You believe that partisan propaganda B.S.?

And what propaganda would that be?

Did you hear what Clinton said about Kerry and Bush? He thought they both were "great!"

And I'm sure he was being completely honest.

Kerry (D-MA), Yea
That's all that matters.

Yes, he voted for it, and no, that's not all that matters.

So they're debating about how far exactly they want to shove a pole up our asses, and you claim that's a fundamental difference?

No, I claim it's not the same.

So when the Republicans increase federal spending, you give them an excuse, but when the Dems do it, you think they just want to expand government for you.

It wasn't an excuse, it was an explanation.

Just take away the excuse and you've almost taken off your blindfold. Both parties want to expand government.

Go ahead and scroll back to the begining of the thread where I said that.

In case you hadn't noticed, the D's occupy more than 23 seats in the Senate.

You need to read more thoroughly before you respond to people's posts.

It took me 30 seconds,

Well, there's your problem.

and forgive me for being frank [you're forgiven], but you're not worth spending any longer on researching a post.

Look how much I care.

This latest posting of yours has done absolutely nothing to further your original contention.

 

[Gunny]

What have the Repubs done?

Your question might be applicable if Republcians ran around promising things to minorities and swearing they were the ones that truly represented them.

Look at the current administration itself. African Americans and Hispanic Americans hold more prominent posts that at any time during a Dem's administration.

Oh that's right ...Clinton DID appoint Henry Cisneros as the Head of HUD. Having to resign as mayor of San Antonio in disgrace when his extramarital affair made page one was probably the true qualifier for Clinton though.