Saturday, October 25, 2008

My response Part II



Jim G. said...

A conservative is okay, a right winger is someone who expects all the benefits of the Goverment, and does not want to pay for them. Starts a war with someone who did not attack us and does not want to pay for it, passes the expense to future Americans. Somehow thinks homosexuals are a threat to him. Believes in Adam and Eve,and Rush L, and Carl R. Right Wingers have "all the answers" and I mean all the answers. Answers that historcially lead to genocide, war, because our God is better than your God.Right wingers support torture, exclusiveness,they watch fix (Fox) news with Sean Hannity.
The Republican race to replace George Bush became who could become the biggest Neanderthal on the planet. I can stay in Iraq longer than you. I can cut taxes bigger than you. I can fire gays better than you. I can repeal Roe vs. Wade faster. I can build a fence faster around America than you.I can stop stem cell research better than you. Bill Buckley was a conservative, but the Republican Party has been taken over by the Right Wing.

Terry, I was going to attempt to rebut you comment point by point but it is not organized in such a way that makes it possible.

Let's start here. I have stated what a Conservative believes many times. We are firm in our beliefs because incrementalism invariable leads us to liberalism. Think little government program.

Much of what you said is just untrue. We want to pay for government and more importantly want less of it, think of what your Sainted Clinton said in 94 after the Rep. takeover "the era of big government is over". In fact your point is laughable, we are arguing against what we believe will be a new welfare state. You seem to equate Conservativism with being rich or selfish, neither is correct.

We also admit when we were wrong, the behavior of the Republican congress was reprehensible, but pay attention here, this is really important...because what they did, was wrong and not in keeping with conservative ideas. Their actions were much closer to your governing beliefs (government largess).

You stated a lot of cultural issues, how can you possibly reason that a philosophy that has at its core, Freedom, would support such ideas in the manner you propose them? We can both understand homosexual rights and be for man/women marriage. We can support stem cell research but believe that it should not be federally funded. We can understand that a unwanted pregnancy can be difficult but chose life. In fact, this is probably the most moral argument we make.

Now let's talk about your side. First of all, you needed to distort my philosophy to make your point. I need no such assistance. Your side is historically anti war and anti military. Your previous fringe has now become your mainstream, with its anti American rants. Your side has used demagoguery to attack any attempt to address the size of government by stating that instead the rich should just pay more (you have in fact made this exact argument). Honest moment here Terry, if the Republican's proposed cutting funds for poor children, because there were fewer of them, how do you think your side would react? Say what you want about the housing bubble, but the videos do not lie and it was your side which proposed affordable housing.

We each attribute intolerance to the other side but it is Rich who keeps posting what is quite frankly a prejudiced video and topic involving Ms. Palin.

The war. Perhaps time will judge it as a mistake (I don't), but once a country commits itself, it cannot leave prematurely. Think what you wish but the Democrats in congress supported the war. Say what you wish about it execution, but wars are inherently messy and prone to fits of regret and errors. We cannot leave at the verge of victory, practically or morally. But to be clear, Conservativism is the party which believes in military action only in national self interest, not in nation building (your side).

My point is that when you use the term right winger, you distort true conservatism. You create an untrue character which does not exist. So, I would appreciate in the future, if you wish to argue against our philosophy, please do so with what we believe, not with your distortions.

Gary said...

Wow, Jim. Either slow up on the caffeine, or start your own magazine. You're wasting a lot of valuable propaganda on knuckleheads like us.

Jim G. said...

I am thinking about a career with national review, assuming they let me use the spell check button.

Sometimes it does a soul good to reaffirm ones principles.

As opposed to trying to poke a tiger in a cage with mindless babble, Oh...Hi Rich.

Baxter said...

I grew up with a National Review editor (Jay Nordlinger), I was a friend of a National Review editor, and you Doc, are not National Review material.

I think the continuing reference to principle is ridiculous. You are a highly partisan soul and will contort yourself into any position favored by the right. Your positions are convenient, not principled. Your economic views are not well informed and lead to the support of policy positions that are reckless.

Let’s give the record more credibility than empty rhetoric. Conservatives widely favor lower taxes on the high end in the face of massive deficits and the costs of the War on Terror. They favor lower taxes in times of recession (they’ll stimulate) and growth (let the taxpayers keep the money – it’s theirs), during deficits and surpluses. This has been the primary cause of a $10 trillion debt that is hobbling our nation’s efforts to thwart systemic economic collapse. It is the enemy of a strong national defense that conservatives claim to favor. The conservative supply side tax cuts of Reagan and Bush have proved to be very expensive indeed and will hasten the end of America’s preeminent status.

Conservatives are not so concerned about tax rates on the low end – they complain that not enough Americans pay income taxes (due to their very low incomes). So, their “principled” complaints about tax rates concern only those that apply to them – not their poor cousins. They cynically cheer a “flat tax” that would by definition raise taxes on the low-wage earners and cut them for the fortunate few. They view large estates to be sacred and bemoan attempts to tax the dead or their idle heirs. They are much more comfortable taxing the wages of those that work hard, take risks, and belong to the ranks of our once large middle class.

The tax system that conservatives complain about taxes wealthy CEOs at lower rates than their secretaries. And still they complain – they want lower rates still on the executives (secretaries, not so much). “Bulls get rich, bears get rich, and pigs get slaughtered”. I expect this to play out in our tax system over the next couple of years and I look forward to it.

Conservatives advocate “freedom”? These are the same folks that unnecessarily wiretap citizens contrary to our constitution? My, how principled! Ask gay couples about freedom in the Bible Belt, which is run by conservatives (even Dick Cheney agrees with me here – I wonder why? Oh, that’s right – it’s convenient). Look to the likes of the Deep South if you want to see what conservative government looks like.

It is easy to advocate “self reliance” and a system that eschews the Village in favor of the Family when you are born into a supportive affluent family. The philosophy of “I got mine – you get yours (or not)” is rather convenient when one is advantaged from the beginning. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of Americans, it does take a village, like it or not.

Jim G. said...

I grew up with a National Review editor (Jay Nordlinger), I was a friend of a National Review editor, and you Doc, are not National Review material.

Now see Richie, wasn't it better to post a serious thought than a racist video.

A dumb thought, but a thought.

Baxter said...

Jim -

Speaking of dumb, how do you define racist in the context of the video?

Jim G. said...

Now...if you are going to insult my opinions be careful. Don't make me play the education card.

How you can read something and look right past it is amazing.

Conservatives are not just the rich, a broad section of American's voted for Bush in the last election. Joe the plumber had the courage to say he did not want a tax refund if it was taken from someone else. You never answer any questions, which is why you are getting boring. I got it, the rich and Bush, bad. Raise taxes.

Last time. We do favor cutting taxes during a recession...OK, guilty, and because only a certain portion is paying the vast majority of taxes then they will get the tax cut. We also have repeatedly argued keeping money out of the hands of government is a better use. If this is not a principled position then I do not know what is.

But, you only talk about raising taxes, but never of cutting government. You know, but never mention that the absolute size of government is growing, due primarily to entitlement spending, yet your answer is always, tax more. You absurdly state that the cause of the government deficit is under taxation. It is not, you ninny, we spend too much! As the article I posted, one of which you never read, noted, the young of this country will be saddled with confiscatory taxes (you should be really happy) unless serious reforms are undertaken. Limited government, ah, a true conservative idea.

Lastly, your prejudice towards the south is amazing. Red state phobia. Your condescending post about the red states just shows your elitist attitude (and knowing you it is even more amazing). I guess it takes a village unless you are from the south.

Lastly, would the video you posted make headlines if it involved a white woman from California, protecting her with the strength of mother earth, rather than a black man from Africa?


Baxter said...


As you know, I am wholly supportive of reining in government. Pay/Go was extremely effective in limiting the growth of government. Yet, your kin folk (with your support) dropped that effective policy moments after Clinton took his show to Westchester County.

Go ahead and play the ed card all day long. I am very proud of my relative performance. How far would you have gotten had you quit college half way through?

Mark R. said...

Man the insults are flying.

Bravo Jim well spoken! Rich you will always get accepted to the Huffington Post. They have no standards.

The truth of the matter is that the Democratic party has moved so far to the left that they are not Democrats anymore. If John F. Kennedy were running for President today based on the platform he ran on in 1960 he would be a republican. Remember he is the Father of the Special Forces in the military, the push to send a man to the moon, tax cuts, etc. Whatever happened to democrats like Scoop Jackson, Daniel Moynihan and Joe Lieberman. Oh, he was forced to become an independant because move on tried to put the extreme left wing candidate into the Senate.

The democratic party has become the party of the elites who think they that most americans cannot take care of themselves and extreme special interest groups and that is why entitlements will increase under a Barry presidency. He owes the trial lawyers, teachers union, all other labor unions, the radical abortion rights groups, code pink, gay and lesbian groups, George Soros, etc. Hillary Clinton was not liberal enough for Move On, the huffington post and the Daily Kos. These are mostly radical organizations some with marxist and anarchist ties.

The conservatives started to be less of a force in the republican party after Reagan left office. There has not been a true conservative running for the presidency since then. Bush I was always considered a moderate, Bush II is the father of compassionate conservatism which is just another way of spending too much taxpayer money. True conservatives favor limited government, less regulation (and it is true children not enough regulation did not cause the housing problem), Strong military, the constitution is a document to be repected and that the founders wishes should be used in making legal decisions, States rights, fiscal discipline, (yes the current crop of free spending republicans are not true conservatives), taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves but not trying to make entire classes of people dependant on government handouts, personal responsibility, loving your country, standing for the national anthem, respecting the flag but also respecting the fact that others have the right to disrespect it, using personal after tax dollars to make charitable donations instead of taking other's money to distribute to special interest groups, honor, repect, common decency, family values. All terms that many on the radical left either do not understand or believe that they are meaningless words.

If true conservatives were in the majority when we had the budget surpluses thanks to the dot com boom they would have squirreled the money away. Maybe used part of it to help fix the shortfall in social security. They would have known that business cycles change and they would not have been so worried about giving the excess back to the people. Rainy days do happen.

With McCain as the republican standard bearer the republican party is moving toward the center of the political spectrum. He is a moderate not a true conservative. Barry is moving the democratic party closer to the party of Eugene McCarthy and the angry radical sixties. Democrats will be the party of the Weather Underground (see Bill Ayers), Black Panthers (see Bobby Rush congressman from Chicago) Reverend Wrights and Father Flagars, the party of socialism and redistribution of wealth. The party of takers instead of the party of builders.

Where is John Galt when you need him?