Forum Discussion

The War on Terror is not free. But nevertheless, I am disappointed that a lot of Republicans in Congress have abandoned their fiscally conservative principles. And I don't think it is an uncommon sentiment among my fellow conservatives.

The Democrats are even worse on fiscal matters, but that doesn't exempt Republicans in Congress. Our choice is not supposed to be among the lesser of two evils. It's like choosing between the guy who gets a D- and the guy who gets an F.

30,000 dollars! Start saving your pennies! I agree the War on Terror isn�t free but that brings up the question what besides "money" are we Americans (Here�s a thought what about the rest of the world for that matter) going to have pay for this �War� to succeed to its highest degree. In my opinion the war can�t be won, no matter when or where terrorism will be apart of this world. Terrorists can�t be killed or wiped out but condemned by all. I�m in no way stating that terrorism is an easy problem to fix that would be impractical. I simply bring up the point (go with me now, I�m out on a lim here) that perhaps in 20 years the Bush administration could be seen as the new Regan administration. Correct me if I�m wrong but didn�t the Regan administration have a similar stance on terror in the 1980�s, and if so what if the Bush administration is the Regan administration of the 80�s in the sense that terrorism was/still is an issue and will continue to be despite all their efforts? (I don�t know much about the Regan administration so any input or points of view are greatly appreciated.) Of course Bush still has two years in office left. I hope that something progressive will be accomplished by 2008 and when a new president takes office liberal or conservative that terrorism will some how be less of a threat for everyone.

Going on a rant here...

>The Democrats are even worse on fiscal matters, but that doesn't exempt Republicans in Congress. Our choice is not supposed to be among the lesser of two evils. It's like choosing between the guy who gets a D- and the guy who gets an F.

Says who? Did you know that Clinton balanced the budget? And that he left a surplus wen he left. Or were you too busy looking at the blue dress? Have you heard about the three least fiscally conservative presidents? Bush, Bush, and Reagan. All Republicans. US Debt with them went through the roof.

>The War on Terror is not free.
Err....Show me teh link between Iraq and Al-Queda again. The one before we invaded there.

>Of course Bush still has two years in office left.
Yeah, plenty of time to completely bankrupt the country.

>But nevertheless, I am disappointed that a lot of Republicans in Congress have abandoned their fiscally conservative principles. And I don't think it is an uncommon sentiment among my fellow conservatives.
Oh you are disappointed are you? So you dragged the whole country down with you into the debt hole and now you are disappointed? Ya all who voted him in should really try to cover that 30,000 dollar debt you owe. Or is balancing the books not in a conservative vocabulary? You, your ilk are a disgrace to your own principals. Did you know that people now laugh when you put "conservative" and "fiscal responsibility" in the same sentence.

I agree with you Good Will.
When I said:
Of course Bush still has two years in office left.
I was basically leaving the door open for Bush, given him the benefit of the doubt, even though I know he�s lost that right. Your right in stating that he might just completely bankrupt the country. Only time will tell.

Clinton balanced the budget? Republican Congress, Internet Bubble, Peace Dividend from end of Cold War had nothing to do with the balancing of the budget. Lest we forget the government shutdown over the budget/Medicare, Clinton using the gift of the line-item veto to veto tax cuts, instead of spending. Clinton wanted to take over the entire health care industry of the economy... That's 1/7 of the economy. And somehow this is who you are claiming to be a champion of fiscal conservatism? Remember that the economy tanked at the end of his presidency, along with the increasing of gas prices.

With an inherited faltering economy, the economic impact of 9-11, and the War on Terror, etc. etc.

As for Reagan, sure he spent more to build up the military. It was in terrible shape, and we had a Cold War to win. But domestic spending grew slower under his watch than all other recent presidents.

On the Al Qaeda/Iraq link, Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization out there. So I don't care what organization it says on their membership card, if it says "terrorist" as their job title. But nevertheless, we knew there were terrorist camps in Iraq. We knew there were conversations with Bin Laden. We knew Iraq was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We knew they were trying to develop WMDs and nukes. We also knew that Iraq had ties to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

And yes, I am disappointed that too many Republicans have not held true to their fiscally conservative beliefs. But with you, I can't win for losing. I say I don't like it, and you call me a disgrace? And WE are the ones who vilify vilify vilify?

But to respond to your ranting, the debt has been around and increasing for years. We didn't drag the whole country down into the debt hole. Grow up. No party's hands are clean of the debt. Even as the Democrats complained about Bush's spending, they were proposing billions in additional spending on top of the GOP budget. No one is laughing at using those two phrases together - conservativsm is fiscally responsible. Even though the GOP has not been fiscally responsible in recent years, people laugh when Democrats claim to be.

>But to respond to your ranting, the debt has been around and increasing for years. We didn't drag the whole country down into the debt hole.

So you are argument is? "They did it too, so we can do it? waaa waaaa...." You guys FALSLY CLAIM to be fiscally conservative. Its liek when a kid comes hoem and tells his mother well I got F+ on my test but billy over there got F-. The point is YOU STILL FAILED!!!!

>No one is laughing at using those two phrases together - conservativsm is fiscally responsible.

Oh yes they are. Hehehehe...

>Clinton balanced the budget? Republican Congress, Internet Bubble, Peace Dividend from end of Cold War had nothing to do with the balancing of the budget.

Clinton balanced the budget!!! Thats right!!! I am prety sure the Republican Congress was busy looking for evidence of consensual sex during that time.

>Internet Bubble, Peace Dividend
Buuuuuzzzzz words...

>But nevertheless, we knew there were terrorist camps in Iraq. We knew there were conversations with Bin Laden. We knew Iraq was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We knew they were trying to develop WMDs and nukes. We also knew that Iraq had ties to the 1993 World Trade Center

Show me the link. Currently you just saying stuf with no proof. SHOW ME TEH ACTUAL LINK!!!


>
And yes, I am disappointed that too many Republicans have not held true to their fiscally conservative beliefs. But with you, I can't win for losing. I say I don't like it, and you call me a disgrace? And WE are the ones who vilify vilify vilify?

Its not villifying if you say "Republican are fiscal conservatives and then they raise the allowed debt level so they could spend more". Thats just what happened. And you are a disgrace for voting such liars in.

My argument is that, contrary to your implication, the debt didn't start in 2001. You point every finger at the GOP for all the debt ever, and pretend that Democrats are the paragon of fiscal responsibility. I didn't deny that the GOP in recent years has let us down by spending like liberals, but you continue to pretend that the Democrats are innocent of all charges. The Republicans that are spending irresponsibly do so because they are trying to give goodies to their constituents to get reelected, and I am frustrated. The Democrats also bring back the goodies to their districts, but ideologically their goal is to increase the government, pork notwithstanding. This is why Republicans, in their worst form, are still better than the Democrats.

You are deluding yourself to think that one day Clinton wanted the government to take over health care and the next he was a fiscal conservative trying to rein in the out of control new GOP majority. Clinton inherited a strong economy and passed on a sinking economy.

I don't care if you don't like the buzz words. They still represent reality.

As for the Iraq War stuff, it's old news. I can only go through this so many times. Enough is enough. The info is on the web. Here, go through the links on this page: http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm
Some of the things I mentioned are there. The suicide bomber jacket warehouse I saw on TV after our soldiers found it. Sorry, I didn't tape it for you.

I don't recall the people I voted in lying. When they run, they say how they are going to spend on this and that. As always, their Democrat opponents are worse. It would be nice if I had better options sometimes, but alas alas.

>You point every finger at the GOP for all the debt ever, and pretend that Democrats are the paragon of fiscal responsibility

I did not mention Democrats, did not say they are a paragon of fiscal responsibility, What I said is that pretty much every Republicans who ever claim they were fiscally responsible are not. What hapen in the Senate on that deb increase vote proves it.
And mentioning Clinton does not mean I mention Democrats. I mentioned Clinton.

>Clinton inherited a strong economy and passed on a sinking economy.
It the other way around. When he was done with it, we had a surplus. Maybe you shoudl actually read up on facts.

>The Democrats also bring back the goodies to their districts, but ideologically their goal is to increase the government
Ideology means nothing. Its words. Actions mean everything. They speak louder then any words. And Republican actions are defeaning...."SPEEEENNDDDD". Bush's government is biggest ever.

>http://www.spiritoftruth.org/iraqlinks.htm
All of that pretty much conjectrure. Again...its SAYING stuff!!!

I mean look at this statement:
--snip--
As it stands, the FBI investigation into the Anthrax mailings has focused on the idea that the bioterrorism was an act of a lone, domestic terrorist and is not related to September 11th. I believe the truth, however, is that the Anthrax mailings, and most likely the 9-11 attacks as well, were a product of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Osama bin Laden was simply a front man for the terrorism that occurred in autumn of last year, and probably all the other major acts of terror blamed on al Qaeda thus far. Ultimately, what is happening here is really Saddam's Revenge...
--snip--

No evidence there. I can replace word Saddam with word Aliens and post it somewhere. It won't make it true.

>I don't recall the people I voted in lying
Oh you do not?
Ohhh...so all that...whenever you hear about wiretapping it requires a warrant speech by Bush was absolute truth eh? Oh...wait is not there still warrantless wiretapping in progress. Also, I've been meaning to ask. If you like wiretapping so much, why not just move to China?

You said that "YOU dragged the whole country down with YOU into the debt hole". Either you mean (from most to least specific) me personally, conservatives, Republicans, voters, Americans, humans, earthlings, or organisms. I give you the benefit of the doubt you don't mean me personally, since I wield no more power than you do. And "you" excludes yourself, so it is safe to deduce that Americans, humans, organisms, and earthlings are not what you meant either. You couldn't be referring to voters, because my educated guess is that you are a voter; but if you're not you don't have a right to complain. And you can't be saying "you" referring to conservatives, because excessive non-Defense government spending is certainly not conservative. So that only leaves Republicans. And Republicans are not Democrats (who, you know, are the other party in Congress). So while you didn't SAY Democrats, it would be silly for me to deduce any other meaning.

The facts have been known for years. Clinton inherited the economy that was coming out of a recession, and passed on one that was falling into recession:

Dec. 4, 2000 NY Daily News (reprinted by FreeRepublic):
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2b7ece0e30.htm

Government conspiracy perpetuating the big lie: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/03/opinion/04schultz-opchart.html

Like I said, I'm not scouring the web for you, but the URL I provided had links to the news stories referring to the stuff I already mentioned. I don't know or care about what he has to say about anything. You wanted links. There they are, as reported by the media.

The difference between here and China is that here we wiretap known terrorists communicating overseas. China wiretaps innocent citizens. No matter how more evidence you don't provide, you won't prove otherwise. Not with mere words. I'm sure if Bush and his NSA program were as insidious as suggest, you would have been dragged off by his secret gestapo never to be seen from again.

But I am wasting my time. You have created a contradictory circular system where our claims demand evidence (even stuff that is already known and well established). But all of our evidence is inadmissable because they are only words. Whereas, your claims don't need to be proven with evidence. They are by default true, and need to be DISproved with evidence. But, as mentioned, all of our evidence is inadmissable. So you cannot be wrong because your claims cannot be disproved. And we cannot be right because our claims cannot be proved.

>You said that "YOU dragged the whole country down with YOU into the debt hole".
It twicefold. I mean you personally because you are responsible for who you vote for. I also mean you and your fellow conservatives. Now do tell me if you disagree with them.

Interestingly enough, we did get a bit off topic. Which I believe was: "So called fiscally responsible Republicans vote to increase debt limit". Basically their so caled fiscal conservatism is just a lie.

>I'm sure if Bush and his NSA program were as insidious as suggest, you would have been dragged off by his secret gestapo never to be seen from again.
Nazi did not just suddenly start dragging people off. It was a slow methodical process by which rights were taken away and means of recourse forbidden. And at some point booomm...and you are off in concentration camp. Now if you say that its not happening here, I dare point you to Bush holding an American Citizen without charges in a military brig, no trial, just cause Bush designated him enemy combatant. Have you heard about that one?

>Whereas, your claims don't need to be proven with evidence.
What claims? Thats Bush Government is the largest most expensive one in our history? Or that Democrats have balanced the budget? Or that increasing the debt limit shows that Republicans are as fiscally conservative as a spoiled children of billionaires who never trully had a job in their lives?