THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

I'm thinking the corporate greedheads are willing to sit out the next few election cycles and count their money. The Strangelove-ian neocons too. Because both groups have already got all they can get out of Bush; now they need the Democrats to step in and restore health to the system so in ten years another Reagan or Bush can come along and scream "Tax cuts!!" and rape and plunder the country again.
 

Until your comment, I never fully understood the interconnected, ecological beauty of it....
 

...ever wonder why they let Clinton get elected? They had got all they could get from GHWB. Who was Ross Perot serving?

And didja notice the old Watergate gang is back, doing the same spying s**t times ten? Heck, it's even the same people - Karl Rove was Donald Segretti's protege. Seems like the brains behind the original Watergate crimes laid low for a while in some kind of Odessa Project but are now back in charge.

(ok, maybe a bit tinfoil-hattish, but stranger things are coming true every day).
 

I would still argue for 1, 3, 4, and 6.
Frankly, although the tax cuts have generated more revenue, they idea is to have less spending overall. Easier said than done, however.
 

Well the idea that tax cuts stimulate investors to create jobs is true. The only problem is the jobs are being created in China and India.

What would conservatives say about progressive tax cuts (aimed only at people making under 200K)? would they stimulate the economy too? Since 2/3 of GDP is consumer spending I think progressive tax cuts would be way more stimulating than top-down cuts.

With all their customers newly flush, investors would be falling over each other to offer new products and services (and thus jobs).

Call it "trickle-up."
 

John Snow truthi-ly boasts to Congress: "average hourly earnings have risen 3.8% over the past 12 months — their largest increase in nearly five years.”

Then Barney Frank had a few follow-up questions....
 

I would still argue for 1, 3, 4, and 6.

Says the guy who thinks global warming is fake.
 

Jason, buddy, sweetheart, you can dice up all the Republicans you want (I have been joining you in doing so here and elsewhere almost every day - and I am a Republican (still)). But please spare us your cherry-picked mis-statements about what conservatism is with the same restraint you would want for any laughable attempts to define 'liberalism' in the current frightening realpolitik state of affairs.

REAL Conservatism, at core, is about one thing - which both Bushes and their asslicking zombies have NEVER believed : SMALL, LIMITED, CONTAINED GOVERNMENT - ESPECIALLY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. PERIOD. Not corporate welfare, religious zealotry, or whatever other distortions you are babbling about today.

So please save our "Utter Bullshit" meters from red-lining with this latest raft of manure and realize you are bitching a bit too loudly about how religious national socialists masquerading as 'conservatives' have made their own dirty use of the massive, out of control, deficit-exploding, all-powerful, all-invasive government that YOUR party and its socialist travelers assembled over 40+ years up to the late 1990's.

They hijacked my party and then they hijacked YOUR big government. Either way they ain't my people any more than they's yoh-se and the only way to avert the atrocities of either party's excessive people-crushing schemes is to slice and dice the levers of government they use to accomplish them. Let's focus there and worry about the trivial question of 'WHO' or 'WHICH SIDE' only after we make some real headway.

When you want to join with real conservatives and 'classic liberals' to take the power away from both corrupt sides of the national equation you will go a long way towards being again credible in my estimation.

National or corporate socialists, whether on the 'left' or the 'right' are NOT true conservatives any more than true liberals, so let's make a deal. I won't use liberal as a dirty word (I never do, anyway - it is another socialist distortion to bait fools) if you keep clear of the word conservative.

How about we stick to calling these national socialists / collectivists (whether social or economic, whether left or right) exactly that.

Thanks, pal-o-mine!!!
 

REAL Conservatism, at core, is about one thing - which both Bushes and their asslicking zombies have NEVER believed : SMALL, LIMITED, CONTAINED GOVERNMENT - ESPECIALLY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL. PERIOD.

Sorry, but you sound like my English leftists mates who say, "real communism has never been tried, so how do we know if it does or does not work." Well, communism has been tried and it did not work. Just as conservatism has been tried and it clearly does not work.

The thing is Conservatism is not what you say it is, it is what people who vote for "conservatives" say it is. SO , it is the "ideology" that supports;

- energetic foreign policy including the use of force as a substitute for diplomacy,

- the un-American intertwining of the state with protestant Christianity,

- the belief that America is favored by God, and

- helping people at the top of the ladder is the best use of the nation's wealth.


Now it maybe painful to realize that your votes have aided and abetted people who hold these beliefs - but you have. Calling them something other than "conservatives" might make you feel better, but they are conservatives.
 

Sorry, Jason. YOU aided and abetted Bush et al by setting up the very power structure that keeps them rolling. You are dead wrong here and you really show your true colors as nothing better than another narrow zealot of your own stripe.

And as someone who believes there are no utopias and communism would never work because of man's nature I still would admit that 'true' communism really wasn't tried - it was hijacked by TOTALITARIANISM. Sound familiar, comrade?

Godsakes, have you ever read or studied the history of the last 100+ years before you ventilate and regurgitate ad nauseam such pathetically shallow platitudes and this catch-phrase-depth ideology you seem to cling to?

You should take a break from writing nonsense for a few days and try reading something more than blogarbage, my own included. You might actually learn for a change and formulate coherent reality-based thoughts to share.

Still, thanks for trying. Hopefully you'll get it right before you're too bloodied by the illusions to which you cling.

Listen to a truly great President, from your own party - you and I share a common enemy in those who murdered him and persist today :

"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - JFK

"Irrational barriers and ancient prejudices fall quickly when the question of survival itself is at stake." - JFK

"Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other." -JFK

"Our task is not to fix the blame for the past, but to fix the course for the future." - JFK

"Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible will make violent revolutions inevitable." -JFK

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." - JFK

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." - JFK
 

P.S. By its true definition JFK was a conservative.
 

But it is the nature of both conservatism and communism to be hijacked by totalitarianism. Conservatism in particular benefits the few, so it cannot be long supported by democratic means and must turn to increasingly undemocratic means to keep power.

The real enemy is one-party rule of any kind.
 

Conservatism, like communism, only benefits the few INSOFAR as it is hijacked by totalitarianism, by which it is no longer conservatism at all.

Both are broad views of the proper role of the collective and both only contemplate general beneficiaries. To say they do otherwise is not really to speak of them but their distortion.
 

The real enemy may be one-party rule, but the proper target is that which makes it possible.
 

have you ever read or studied the history of the last 100+ years before you ventilate and regurgitate ad nauseam such pathetically shallow platitudes and this catch-phrase-depth ideology you seem to cling to?

You should take a break from writing nonsense for a few days and try reading something more than blogarbage,

I think you may be laboring under the illusion that I think I am having some sort of impact on anything.

Allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I'm just standing here with my thumb in the dyke. The "dyke" is this flimsy internet, my thumb is what I type with, and on the other side of the dyke is a vast reservoir filled with the racid bile of a million nit wits like this
idiot.
 

Your idea of a pure and altruistic conservatism uncoupled from authoritarianism is just another kind of utopia. It doesn't exist. And if it did, it couldn't get elected dogcatcher.
 

Conservatism lives in ideas and cannot be altruistic or pure. Only those who effect its idea can have these qualities, or betray them. Conservatism is about resistance to collectivism, period. If collectivism is embraced at the expense of individual liberty it is no longer conservatism but its bastardization and betrayal.

Let's not confuse ideas or ideology with political pragmatism or political actors falsely laying claim to them.
 

So your energy in blogging is expended less to make a contribution than to enjoy it as masturbation?

You should have said so in the first place. I wouldn't have bothered joining a circle jerk.
 

Oh and I could not agree more with your assessment of a certain JackasstotheRight (sorry to abuse the symbol of your party). Just don't be JackasstotheLeft, J. I do appreciate what you do and you DO have an impact, you just can't see it. Regards...
 

Thanks for the pep talk.

For the record, I'm an unapologetic partisan. I believe the Democratic party is the best hope for a return to the fair and just America of spoken of in your history books. If that makes me a jackasstotheleft - so be it.