Russ Feingold

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:
[b] May I now judge your writings by the same standard?

Now you're motivated to do some research?!! [/b]

You didn't answer my question. My research is long since done.

<small>[ 04-13-2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: BigJon@Work ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Feel free. I'm sure you'll find some inconsistency you can capitalize on.

[BigJon@Work]

Ah, young Padawan, you've learned well at the feet of your leftist masters. When asked a direct question, twist, twist, twist.

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
that if you subscribe even in part to his agenda, and you do, you buy into the whole parcel.

So, if you subscribe to a part of the left wing agenda you buy the whole thing?

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by BigJon@Work:
So, if you subscribe to a part of the left wing agenda you buy the whole thing?

First, as for the "twist, twist, twist" bit, no. I figured you would actually do some research and find someplace where I at least came across like I agreed with GWB on something, not that I think I ever did since my disillusionment. Not surprising you went for a shortcut attempt.

When you quoted me, you left out the qualifier. I said:

"GWB has lied on so many fronts, and is doing so much to dismantle the foundation of liberty, freedom and democracy for the people this country was founded on and evolved to become, that if you subscribe even in part to his agenda, and you do, you buy into the whole parcel." (Italics for the part you left out.)

I think I can say with reasonable assurance that the "left wing agenda" isn't primarily built on a foundation of lies and destructiveness, and therefore isn't a tangled, interconnected web, and places priority on the furthering the principles on which this country was founded and has evolved into. Unlike your GWB administration.

Additionally, the "left wing agenda" hasn't created a toady network based on a bunch of wannabe cliche' talking points.

So the answer is no.

So, what's it like to be a neocon?

<small>[ 04-13-2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

RE:Additionally, the "left wing agenda" hasn't created a toady network based on a bunch of wannabe cliche' talking points.

"When Clinton lied, nobody died."

"An illigitimate President"

"Iraquagmire"

When I was Googling "Plamegate" to verify some facts, most of the leftist sites had the same headline, and posted the same article, some crediting it's original source, some not.

I suppose your point could be taken that these aren't "wannabe cliche's", they are actual cliche's.

I could go on, but I gave up politics for Lent.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

I don't agree with the "in for a penny, in for a pound" philosophy. This would suggest extreme polarization on the part of the American public. While this may exist in American politics, I think the public is smarter than that...most people (I think) are shades of gray in the middle. For instance, though registered Republican, I think GWB is perhaps the worst, deceitful president we've ever had...remember the old quote "I am a unifier; not a divider". Look at the record, what has he done to the Republican party? It's in a shambles with many Congressmen literally running full speed away from this guy for some of the bonehead moves and statements he's made (which I will not list here). I think the worst thing that ever happened was the party selling out to the religious right. Why? They needed the votes. Now it seems that religion is the only agenda for these people. Seperation of church and state? I think not.

Anyway, my point is that as a voter and THINKING human being, you don't have to agree with the whole agenda. BOTH parties have good and bad points and prospectives. Unfortuately, it comes down to picking the lesser of the two evils right now.

[barfle]

Unfortunately, I think both major parties have lost the original idea of the founding fathers.

The government was supposed to be in place only to protect the rights of the people. That included defending the territory (but not with a standing army, only a navy), and a few other bureaucratic tasks like operating a Post Office and building roads for it to use. It wasn't intended to rebuild storm-damaged cities, it wasn't intended to fund your old age, and it wasn't intended to manage interest rates.

Unfortunately, both major parties have decided that winning elections is what it's all about, and have sold their souls for votes. The liberals want to give my money away, and the "conservatives" want to give my liberty away. Of course, now the "conservatives" want to give my money away, too.

They are for sale, and the price we are paying is dreadful.

[Shapley]

Barfle:

The liberals....Dang it! Lent isn't over yet!

Have a Happy Easter!

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Shapley:
....Dang it! Lent isn't over yet!

If you're Catholic, Lent is over. Yesterday evening.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:
OT,

RE:[b]Additionally, the "left wing agenda" hasn't created a toady network based on a bunch of wannabe cliche' talking points.

"When Clinton lied, nobody died."

"An illigitimate President"

"Iraquagmire"

When I was Googling "Plamegate" to verify some facts, most of the leftist sites had the same headline, and posted the same article, some crediting it's original source, some not.

I suppose your point could be taken that these aren't "wannabe cliche's", they are actual cliche's.

I could go on, but I gave up politics for Lent.

V/R
Shapley [/b]

There it goes again! That Shap/*igJon symbiosis....

[Shapley]

Barfle,

Giving your money away and giving your liberty away are the same thing. If the government controls the fruits of your labour, you are no better than a slave to government.

Tax Liberty Day used to be the day we recognized the end of our servitude to government, and began to keep the the money we earned for ourselves. The last time I heard any mention of it, it fell somewhere around Mother's Day. They've long since stopped mentioning it, but at this point on the calendar we are still servants of the government.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
There it goes again! That Shap/*igJon symbiosis....

Great minds think alike, I s'pose! :p

[barfle]

Originally posted by Shapley:
Giving your money away and giving your liberty away are the same thing. If the government controls the fruits of your labour, you are no better than a slave to government.

While there are similarities, I can choose to do without money, and still live a free man.

[Shapley]

Barfle,

Perhaps, but I would argue that you would surrender as many freedoms in order to live a moneyless life as would be taken from you otherwise.

The lack of government offers the greatest amount of freedom, but the least amount of security. When a people band together to form a government, they do so with the understanding that they will trade an acceptable amount of freedom for an acceptable amount of security. I believe our Constitution, as written, represents an excellent balance between the two. That being said, our government, as practiced, bears little resemblance to the government the Constitution proscribes, nor has it since at least the end of World War II.

It is the natural tendency of governments to attempt to expand themselves. I believe that our founding fathers knew this, and attempted to write a document that would prevent, or at least retard, that growth. The Civil War weakened the power of the States, and the government began to grow at a faster rate. The Great Depression weakened our support for free markets, and government stepped in to fill the void with social guarantees. World War II left us with a fear of invasion, and with the power of nuclear weapons, the government responded with a full-time standing army, under the auspices of the "Department of Defense", to alleviate those fears, and the power of the militia was weakened. The Civil Rights struggle left us with a fear that State governments could not adequately protect all the people, and the Federal government stepped in to offer 'protections' the States had failed to provide, weakening the power of the Governors and the State legislators. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the list goes on, all well-intended programs designed to take a little more of our money and a little more of our freedom to provide us with more security. Each of us may have a different opinion on how fair of trade each of those has been, but one thing remains certain, the government, having acquired additional powers, has yet to relenquish any of it. When Presidents have attempted to reverse the trend, or even to slow it, they have been accused of wanting to 'starve children, destroy the environment, kill the elderly, roll back the clock on civil rights, destroy our educational system', etc., etc., etc.

Lots of people, even on this site, decry the loss of 'freedom' under this President, yet seem to loathe to admit that his only about the 41st administration to continue this expansion of power. Yet, try to restore some freedom by reducing some of the security that it was traded for, and see what happens. some here decry the loss of freedoms under this President, yet advocates a system of medical coverage that would make every doctor in the nation a civil servant. Others want to raise social security taxes on wealthy patrons so that they are guaranteed to pay more in than they could ever recoup, in essence having the wealthy underwrite they program, making it a welfare program rather than a retirement plan as it was originally sold.

Methinks they protest too much.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day®


America's Tax Freedom Day® Arrives April 26th in 2006, Three Days Later Than 2005
Tax Freedom Day® will fall on April 26 in 2006, according to the Tax Foundation’s annual calculation using the latest government data on income and taxes.

“Tax freedom will come three days later in 2006 than it did in 2005,” said Tax Foundation President Scott A. Hodge, “and fully 10 days later than in 2003 and 2004 when a combination of slow income growth and tax cuts caused Tax Freedom Day to arrive comparatively early, on April 16.”

However, 2006’s Tax Freedom Day is still considerably earlier than it was in 2000, when the economic boom, the tech bubble and higher tax rates pushed tax burdens to a record high, and Tax Freedom Day was postponed until May 3.

Tax Freedom Day, 1980-2006
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/2006/Figure1large.jpg

[Shapley]

Jamie,

Thanks. I Googled it earlier looking for a 'mainstream' reference to Tax Freedom Day. I wasn't persistent enough to keep looking.

I suppose it largely disappeared from the 'mainstream' newspaper references, since it shows that President Bush has helped the average citizen by moving Tax Freedom day a couple weeks earlier than it was under his predecessor. BTW, I see that, in Canada, it doesn't fall until June 17th. That means Canadians work almost half the year as slaves to the government.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Shapley: I guess you can look at it any way you want to. It's true that GWB has done a yeoman's job in reducing the tax burden on certain segmants of the population. To be fair about it, he has also run the debt of the country to unprecidented highs approaching $9 trillion. Unfortunately, that is a legacy that will create a huge burden on thise who follow. Please study the graph carefully for trends since 2000: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
It's more than alarming...it's irresponsible

[piqaboo]

'slaves to the gov't ' implies they take 100% of what is earned to that point in the calendar.
Is that what you are saying>?

Also, grammar police here, the Constitution didnt proscribe the gov't, it prescribed it (tho there a proscriptions in it).

[Shapley]

Jamie,

We've had extensive discussions on the National Debt, and my point remains that it is not that big of a deal. It's true that, in dollar figures, the debt has climbed at an astronomical rate. However, as a percentage of GDP, the debt remains manageable. As the economy continues to grow, the debt as a percent of GDP actually decreases. I find that neither alarming nor irresponsible.

Piq, RE: Slavery. Yes, the government takes 100% of what is earned up to that point in the calendar year, or about 32% of what is earned throughout the calendar year.

RE: Grammar.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Originally posted by Shapley:
I would argue that you would surrender as many freedoms in order to live a moneyless life as would be taken from you otherwise.

I'm as materialist as anyone, so many things I enjoy would, indeed, be lost if I were to decide to live moneyless, but I would not be in prison, I could think what I wanted to, and go where I wanted to (perhaps on foot, but at least I could), and talk to whoever I wanted to. That's the difference.

I cite the Civil War as the first large change in the direction of the US Government from that detailed in the Constitution, although I may find a need to correct that with further study of history. Lincoln, while I have no doubt of his sincerity and belief that slavery was abhorrent, ran roughshod over the Constitution in his successful attempt to preserve the Union that he altered forever.

I happen to feel that any loss of freedom to the government is something that SHOULD be protested. We're not approaching a slippery slope, we're careening down it at breakneck speed. I know there are many who disagree with me, but I tend to the opinion that they haven't studied the conditions of colonial America and the early US. We're far more restricted and regulated than the rebellious colonists were, and we're letting it happen far too gladly.

I agree that many people (who gladly classify themselves as "liberals") don't really want the freedom to choose a medical care provider, to choose a school, or to choose a TV signal provider based on competitive advantages to their particular situation. I have a beef with them on issuse like these as well.

Gotta keep both sides in line, I'm afraid. Which doesn't really make me a moderate, either.