A decent rant

[Steady Micro Aggressor]

From a discussion I'm having in Whitewidow's forum.




hrs: okay, here is a big part of why GOP lost control of congress. monochrome idealists stayed home and did......whatever they do........ because GWB ain't the total personification of thier COLLECTIVE ideals. Meanwhile DNC was registering convicts, drugaddicts, homeless,etc., and buying the election.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, I agree with you. Why Bush even tried to appeal the monochrome idealists is beyond me. Bush even put into effect their collectivist ideals, such as signing Ted Kennedy's education bill, setting up freebie drugs for geezers, and Republican out of control spending. What did it get him and his party? Thrown out of Congress. Even worse for Republicans, they would have lost the White House if the 06 election was a Presidential election. You Republicans got lucky.

What Bush and the Republicans did was alientate actual conservatives like me by expanding descretionary spending on social programs and pork. You can blame me all you want for refusing to vote for Bush, but you ought to be looking in the mirror. My positions haven't changed, yours have. Republicans left me.

Sorry, but 09-11 isn't justification for expanding the power of government like Republicans did. Neither are the Mad Moozies. Again, my positions didn't change. I opposed Clinton's band aid anti terror bill back in the late 90s to remedy the OKC bombing. Republicans embraced activist government, and it's cost you.

We'll find out soon enough if Republican's motivation was national security or politics. The Democrats aren't going to change too much, they don't have the balls. Are you going to support the Democrats war effort?



The True Free Speech Forum: members.boardhost.com/freespeechboard/index.html

[Steady Micro Aggressor]

I'd like to post some more from a conversation I'm having with hrs in The True Free Speech forum. hrs does wel lpresenting his side. I'm enjoying our exchange, from an intellectual point of view.



hrs: am i to take from that that you advocate bush or any pres running the country via a poll at any given point in time? or should he govern by principle, not saying YOU agree with his principle? do we have any grain of a Republic left ot should we just be a perotista style vote by puter 24/7 on each issue as CNN spoonfeeds it to us?




Steadfast:I simply pointed out that if the White House was up for grabs in 06, Republicans would have lost it too. You know I'm right.




hrs: so, the enemy hits us in our weak spots and you don't think that's justification for upgrading our security? what freedom have you lost? the "freedom" to chat with alqueda spooks in pakistan? the right to send ricin to your favorite congressman? what makes you think the constitution ever gave you the right to plot for the overthrow of the US Govt and/or kill it's citizens?





steadfast:That's all you can do to justify the freedom grabs, go back to 09-11? Hasn't that horse been rode enough? I know 09-11 happened. My response continues to be, I'd rather die free than live in the kind of police state you and other want in some hope of being safe.

The 4th amendment has been seriously eroded by the patriot acts. It's only a matter of time before what said to be reserved for "enemy combatants" will be applied to the rest of us.




hrs: so you don't like his position on those issues, neither do i, however i don't see how empowering those who handle those issues EVEN WORSE than him, accomplishes..............?





Steadfast: If the Democrats think 06 was a mandate for them to impose their brand of socialism on the rest of us, they'll be out of there sooner than later. You should focus on how bad Republicans handled issue the last 6 years instead of wasting time speculating what the Democrats might do.





hrs:so, repealing the tax cuts that kept us out of a depression, raising minimum wage and cutting off funds to our troops in the field isn't TOO big a "change", i see, a moderate collapse of the economy and potential diseaster for our military (pssst 3k KIA isnt a diseaster) isn't too big a price to pay to "tell bush off" eh?






Steadfast: I'll repeat, if the Democrats think that thier win in 06 was based on the fact the public thinks government is too small, they're wrong. I don't support or advocate tax increases on anyone. I think the Min Wage should be repealed, not raised. I didn't vote for a Democrat for Federal office in 06. Looking at how Republicans did the big government thing the last 6 years, Republicans have no room to criticise Democrat big government. Big government is big government, no matter which party is in charge. If big government is such a concern, you should have reigned in your party's big government ways before they lost.

Bush deserved being told off. And one more thing, Bush's tax cuts were so small as to effect very little. We the people kept us out of a depression, not one politician, or party.

[Steady Micro Aggressor]

One more exchange that is good.





hrs:Pragmatism vs Idealism. both are and were elements of a great society.




Steadfast: That is true, but where's the dividing line? There we have the great debate.




hrs: i think you & i probably have more in common than not, but agreeing isn't that much fun, so:



Steadfast: Agreed




hrs: you're probably right. i was simply stating that i don't care to have a president that runs our country based on the most popular notion at every point in time. i desire a repubic, where we install the person(s) we think is best for the job and let em do it.




Steadfast: Understood. I disagree with how Bush handled terrorism. Almost every remedy Bush and congress passed into law took freedom from everyone who had nothing to do with terrorism. I don't see the purpose in that. Why didn't anyone(Republican or Democrat) propose remedies based on expansion of individual freedom? Look at that one crew that fought back? That crew and passengers died, but they saved many more lives. Individuals can act as well, if they have the freedom. If one trained individual in that plane would have had a firearm, or some weapon, the Towers might still be standing.





hrs: i did not attempt to justify any "freedom grabs". I was asking how you can be so distrustful of the us govt when the country it's trying to protect (US) is clearly under attack. it makes no sense.





Steadfast: It wasn't 15 years ago that you republicans were distrustful of big government, no matter the reason. I would dispute that the US us "under attack" I don't think 3 instances of "terror" qualifies as being "under attack". One of the instances was a domestic act of terror. I understand the emotional aspects of this. I felt those emotions at the time and after the attack. However, I also understood I had to maintain a standard of reason. What makes the 3000 deaths in the 09-11 attack more important than the near 30,000 incidents where Americans kill each other? That's not including justifiable homicide. You would say the US is under attack by terrorists based on 4000 deaths in the US by acts of terror since 1993. Hundreds of thousands have died at the hands of fellow Americans since 93. Shouldn't we use activist government to remedy that? Using the same logic you use to justify the big government remedies to terror, we should use all sorts of big government remedies to combat internal violence. We should ban guns, and have group based profiling to the point everyone is considered guilty and denied due process. Knives should be banned, so should pencils, tooth picks, any long shank tool, and used toothpaste tubes. It should be required that every home in America have metal detectors at every entrance. We should have Homeland security checkpoints at every 3rd block or intersection. Cars would be banned. We'd all have to ride mopeds as no form of transportation could be lethal. Have I made my point yet?




hrs: maybe so, but at what cost? the loss of our legislative branch as well as the loss of any potentially decent SCOTUS appointment for at least 2 years, if not 6 0r 10




Steadfast: Bush and the Republicans should have pondered those questions way before now. Now Republican grassroots types should ponder those points.




hrs: some time its a game of inches. it is clear the rebates helped spark consumer spending as well as sentiment, the cuts spurred investment. sure i can get into a much more expanded tax cut agenda, but what, "it's not enough, so shove it"?




Steadfast: Inches is a very generous term for those tax cuts, some of which still haven't been applied, and prolly never will now. I never said shove it to tax cuts, even small ones.



hrs: how exactly did "we" do that?




Steadfast: By getting up and doing something that produces something. That something can be a product, or a service. But that's what keeps the US going, people like me, and I assume you. It's Not Bush, whatever Democrat stiff they want to offer up, or any politician or bureaucrat for that matter. I get by in spite of the high taxes, meaningless regulations, stupid fees, unending licenses and permits, and the list is endless.