Neo-Conned

[Max Power]

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
Written by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

...

It goes on...



If you are a true conservative, you'll be interested in what Mr. Paul has to say.
If, on the other hand, you are more concerned with "red states" and being a republican, then you won't care at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

As I stated in the other thread...

You do know that Ron Paul is a Libertarian who joined the R Party in an attempt to revise it to fit more with the Libertarian agenda, don't you? I recently followed his example in the hopes we can return the Republican Party to its small (l) libertarian core values.

www.rlc.org

 

[Max Power]

As I stated in the other thread...

You do know that Ron Paul is a Libertarian who joined the R Party in an attempt to revise it to fit more with the Libertarian agenda, don't you? I recently followed his example in the hopes we can return the Republican Party to its small (l) libertarian core values.

www.rlc.org

I must've missed that in the other thread.

The Republican party is now the big government party. I hope that Ron Paul succeeds.

 

[Zhukov]

I must've missed that in the other thread.

The Republican party is now the big government party. I hope that Ron Paul succeeds.

Nah, they're just the "Not-so-big-but-still-frigin'-huge-government Party".

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.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

Nah, they're just the "Not-so-big-but-still-frigin'-huge-government Party".

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.

Which most Americans don't want. Americans want their taxes low, less gov't intervention, and their families respected.

 

[nakedemperor]

Nah, they're just the "Not-so-big-but-still-frigin'-huge-government Party".

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.

:blah2:

The current administration has expanded the government by several departments and increased spending by a huge margin...

 

[musicman]

The fact that Mr. Paul seeks to inject sanity into the Republican Party shows that he still considers sanity within that party to be within the realm of the possible.

Notice he didn't go near the Democrats.

I wish him luck.

 

[musicman]

The fact that Mr. Paul seeks to inject sanity into the Republican Party shows that he still considers sanity within that party to be within the realm of the possible.

Notice he didn't go near the Democrats.

I wish him luck.

That said, though, America very much defends its own sovereign interests by fighting terrorists wherever it finds them. Murderous cowards need to die - and better in their yard than ours.

 

[ThomasPaine]

:blah2:

The current administration has expanded the government by several departments and increased spending by a huge margin...

would like. But of course we should reduce Defense expenditures, because, after all, we aren't at war or anything.

 

[Zhukov]

:blah2:

The current administration has expanded the government by several departments and increased spending by a huge margin...

And I contend that a Federal government with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress would increase spending more quickly.

Do you disagree?

How many Republicans do you hear crying about how we don't spend enough money at the federal level (not counting military and domestic security expenditures)?

How many Democrats do you hear crying about how we spend too much money at the federal level (not counting military and domestic security expenditures)?

Then of course one might know the prime purpose of establishing a Federal government to begin with was for maintaing security from threats domestic and abroad. Which is why I make the above exemptions.

Which party is better characterized by a desire to expand the Federal government most, and also a desire to expand it further beyond it's original intent?

I contend that party is the Democratic party.

Do you disagree? And if so, why?

 

[nakedemperor]

The contention that a Democratic president would have increased spending even more than the current president is utterly ludicrous, for the simple reason that the Republican Congress would have blocked him at every turn; the reason that Dubya hasn't had to issue a single veto yet in 5 years (not one!) is that congress doesn't even hand him anything he COULD veto! They take their marching orders directly from the White House, eliminating the check and balance between the two powers. I contend that such a staunchly party line Congress wouldn't have allowed a Democratic president to increase spending.

Moreover, this thread is *completely* conjectural. I don't think a Democratic president would have taken us to pre-emptive, illegal war in Iraq. That alone would have curtailed hundreds of billions of dollars of spending. The Bushies dont even PUT the war bill on the budget! No wonder its coming out lower than expected...they're leaving it for someone else to pay off!

 

[ThomasPaine]

The contention that a Democratic president would have increased spending even more than the current president is utterly ludicrous, for the simple reason that the Republican Congress would have blocked him at every turn; the reason that Dubya hasn't had to issue a single veto yet in 5 years (not one!) is that congress doesn't even hand him anything he COULD veto! They take their marching orders directly from the White House, eliminating the check and balance between the two powers. I contend that such a staunchly party line Congress wouldn't have allowed a Democratic president to increase spending.

Moreover, this thread is *completely* conjectural. I don't think a Democratic president would have taken us to pre-emptive, illegal war in Iraq. That alone would have curtailed hundreds of billions of dollars of spending. The Bushies dont even PUT the war bill on the budget! No wonder its coming out lower than expected...they're leaving it for someone else to pay off!

like Billy Jeff Clinton and done NOTHING! Look sonny I'd like to teach ya about politics but you're at that "special age" where you know the "truth" about everything and the "answers" to all our problems... Meaning: You don't know squat and in a few years you'll realize it. Thankfully those who think like you are in the minority and are not at liberty to make national security decisions at this time. The American people will let the dem libs know when they can be trusted again, but let me clue you in when that will be; when the WOT is over, and when there are no national security threats of ANY KIND as the dem libs are unable to address these concerns. You can be a special case however and pull your head outta your ass now, however, due to your age and naivete, I doubt this will occur.

Keep on truckin' dude, "Power to the people", "Fuck the Man" or what ever. It IS nice to be young, naive, secluded in the college environment, and dumber than a stump, ain't it?

 

[Big Blue Machin]

If a Democratic President does get elected with a Republican Congress, he or she will get nowhere when it comes to spending more. It will just be like when Gerald Ford was in power and the Democrats were in Congress. The situition is reversed. In that situition, the Democrats wouldn't get Ford cut spending.

 

[ThomasPaine]

If a Democratic President does get elected with a Republican Congress, he or she will get nowhere when it comes to spending more. It will just be like when Gerald Ford was in power and the Democrats were in Congress. The situition is reversed. In that situition, the Democrats wouldn't get Ford cut spending.

Gerry was a caretaker President that was all. The USS Mayaguez incident with the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia (Those murderous bastards who will burn in hell for eternity) was the highlight of his brief tenure. Other than that his loss in '76 to Jimmy "I''m a coward and I hate the United States" Carter are the only thing history will remember of him..

 

[freeandfun1]

If a Democratic President does get elected with a Republican Congress, he or she will get nowhere when it comes to spending more. It will just be like when Gerald Ford was in power and the Democrats were in Congress. The situition is reversed. In that situition, the Democrats wouldn't get Ford cut spending.

Don't know US history much huh?

Nixon - Democratic Houses
Ford - Democratic Houses
Reagan - Democratic Houses
Bush Sr. - Democratic Houses

The Dems controlled both houses for 40 years. They didn't only block Ford, the dems blocked Reagan and Bush Sr. too.

 

[Big Blue Machin]

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

 

[manu1959]

Which most Americans don't want. Americans want their taxes low, less gov't intervention, and their families respected.

unless your school or park is run down and you need some new house to rob....

 

[Max Power]

And I contend that a Federal government with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress would increase spending more quickly.

Do you disagree?

How many Republicans do you hear crying about how we don't spend enough money at the federal level (not counting military and domestic security expenditures)?

How many Democrats do you hear crying about how we spend too much money at the federal level (not counting military and domestic security expenditures)?

Then of course one might know the prime purpose of establishing a Federal government to begin with was for maintaing security from threats domestic and abroad. Which is why I make the above exemptions.

Which party is better characterized by a desire to expand the Federal government most, and also a desire to expand it further beyond it's original intent?

I contend that party is the Democratic party.

Do you disagree? And if so, why?

I contend that the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same thing.

I would bet that there's more variation within the Democrat and Republican party than there is difference between them.

 

[Zhukov]

The contention that a Democratic president would have increased spending even more than the current president is utterly ludicrous, for the simple reason that the Republican Congress would have blocked him at every turn;

That isn't what I asked.

It is perhaps possible you clicked the "reply" button before reading twelve words into my post.....it is also possible you read beyond those first twelve words and decided to construct a response that you hoped would either fool people into believing you hadn't read beyond the first twevle words, or even would perhaps serve to make them forget all save the first eleven words...

In any event, please, by all means, try again.

 

[Zhukov]

I contend that the Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same thing.

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

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

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.

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?