Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Avatar4321:
When exactly do you think conservtism has been tried? When was the last time the federal government actually shrank?
Even the conservative WSJ doesn't credit him with shrinking the size of government.
Featured Article - WSJ.com
That's no reason for liberals, who run on a platform of CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN, to pretend they can't reach the bar they set!
Ahhhh, shrinking the size of government is the only measurement of CON$ervatism, the perfect Catch 22 for denying blame for every failure of CON$ervatism.
Reagan said he would shrink the size of government and eliminate the Energy and Education Departments. So either we never had a CON$ervative as president, even though Reagan has been held up as the PARAGON of CON$ervative presidents, or every CON$ervative is a liar. I go with the second.
It is NOT the only measurement of conservatism, but it IS the measurement for the purposes of the context of this discussion.
Avatar4321:
When exactly do you think conservtism has been tried? When was the last time the federal government actually shrank?
Ahhhh, shrinking the size of government is the only measurement of CON$ervatism, the perfect Catch 22 for denying blame for every failure of CON$ervatism.
Reagan said he would shrink the size of government and eliminate the Energy and Education Departments. So either we never had a CON$ervative as president, even though Reagan has been held up as the PARAGON of CON$ervative presidents, or every CON$ervative is a liar. I go with the second.
It is NOT the only measurement of conservatism, but it IS the measurement for the purposes of the context of this discussion.
CON$ can't stop themselves from cherry-picking one thing and ignoring everything else!
So, based on that observation, it could be argued that EVERY president could be called CON$ervative and we never even had a Moderate president, let alone a Liberal president.
I just wish that a more conservative attitude would return with our representatives. It seems the representatives don't actually represent the attitude of the American people. We elect what we think are conservatives, and when they get to Washington they turn into liberals. We should also make it a law that representatives can only serve 2 terms just like the president. Old liberals like Kennedy have been in the senate for 50 million years.
Ahhhh yes, every time CON$ervatism fails, and CON$ervatism fails every time it's tried, it's called Liberalism.
I wonder, if the Libs said Carter failed because he was tooooooo CON$ervative, how would that go over with you CON$.
It is NOT the only measurement of conservatism, but it IS the measurement for the purposes of the context of this discussion.
CON$ can't stop themselves from cherry-picking one thing and ignoring everything else!
So, based on that observation, it could be argued that EVERY president could be called CON$ervative and we never even had a Moderate president, let alone a Liberal president.
Libz are incapable of having a discussion with deflecting! The subject of the economy, thus the size of government as a conservative principle, began here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/55505-totally-disgusted-with-us-politics-2.html#post1245303
Now, again, I'll ask.... How's that CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN working out for ya?
I just wish that a more conservative attitude would return with our representatives. It seems the representatives don't actually represent the attitude of the American people. We elect what we think are conservatives, and when they get to Washington they turn into liberals. We should also make it a law that representatives can only serve 2 terms just like the president. Old liberals like Kennedy have been in the senate for 50 million years.
Ahhhh yes, every time CON$ervatism fails, and CON$ervatism fails every time it's tried, it's called Liberalism.
I wonder, if the Libs said Carter failed because he was tooooooo CON$ervative, how would that go over with you CON$.
CON$ can't stop themselves from cherry-picking one thing and ignoring everything else!
So, based on that observation, it could be argued that EVERY president could be called CON$ervative and we never even had a Moderate president, let alone a Liberal president.
Libz are incapable of having a discussion with deflecting! The subject of the economy, thus the size of government as a conservative principle, began here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/55505-totally-disgusted-with-us-politics-2.html#post1245303
Now, again, I'll ask.... How's that CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN working out for ya?
Wow, you prove both my cherry-picking observation and my sig in the same post.
Thank you.
And I VOTED 3rd party, I was not fooled by either Party.
And a Cynic can outsmart either Party so "change" always "works out" good for a Cynic.
You lost me at Ayn Rand, boyo. A dry, humourless unrealisitic dreamer. Frankly, she praised the attributes of selfishness and greed, which ironically, got this fair country into this economic meltdown to begin with. But, other than than that, she was just spiffy.
Some one please explain to me how Reagan was supposed to shrink the size of government when the Dems controlled both houses of congress except for one two year period when the Reps had a one or two vote majority in the Senate?
The Bush family represents the country club set. They differ from the dems only in how fast they wish to spend your money usually about 2/3rd as fast as the Dems want to.
The REpublican party can be fixed. All that has to be done is kick out the country club crowd. The Dems are completely broken as can be told by reading any post by chris or Old Rocks.
Oh and lest I gorget the primary reason for those awful medical statistics have nothing to do with the quality of health care in this country and almost everything to do with the fact that we let far more 3rd worlders into this country than any eurpoean nation does.
