Democrats on the brink of caving, again.

Beefy said:
But Bush is a fiscal Conservative! YAY DANO!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.schip/index.html

For all his spending, all the bullshit, this is where he picks his battle. At least the democrats are good for something, preventing rubber stamp spending.

Pennywise and pound foolish. Well, penny lame and pound retarded anyway.
Click to expand...
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.
 
Watermark said:
We should take away the presidents veto power. Can't think of one time in history that's ever done us any good at all.
Click to expand...

As just about all bills sent up include some government growth, I tend to agree with the founders that it is best to have the president with absolute control in stopping government from doing things.
Truman did tons of vetoes during the McCarthy era - that alone should probably convince you to rethink your pretend decent knowledge of history.
 
TheDanold said:
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.
Click to expand...
So war spending aside the pill bill was fiscally conservative? The Education bill he passed with Kennedy is your idea of fiscal conservatism? Please.
 
TheDanold said:
I never said that Bush is a fiscal Conservative, just that he is MORE fiscally responsible than the Dems and setting aside the war spending he is.

Dems would have gone to Iraq anyway, Vietnam, Korea, Haiti, Kosovo - all Democrat wars and many of them have gone off about Saudi Arabia, Darfur and Pakistan. They will war for "humanitarian" reasons and when they go to war the anti-war movement mysteriously shrinks bigtime to only include the Green Party type Liberals.
Click to expand...

How is he more fiscally responsible that the dems given is record over the last 7 years, in which his "budgets" don't include his wars?

Seriously Dano, this guy is the biggest spender in the history of mankind. Period. How can he be more fiscally conservative than ANYTHING given that?

How, on gods green earth is he defensible to you?
 
TheDanold said:
As just about all bills sent up include some government growth, I tend to agree with the founders that it is best to have the president with absolute control in stopping government from doing things.
Truman did tons of vetoes during the McCarthy era - that alone should probably convince you to rethink your pretend decent knowledge of history.
Click to expand...

*yawn*

The first use of the veto was by George Washington, in order so that he could secure an extra seat for Virginia in congress by using a different apportionment method. That should tell you something about it's use. America would be better without it. One man shouldn't be a super-legislature - that has nothing to do with EXECUTING THE LAW.
 
Waterhead said:
*yawn*

The first use of the veto was by George Washington, in order so that he could secure an extra seat for Virginia in congress by using a different apportionment method. That should tell you something about it's use.
Click to expand...
No that should tell me about ONE time it was used. Try researching the THOUSANDS of other times it was used. I'm sure even a reverted Socialist would find some goodies in that bag.

Waterhead said:
America would be better without it. One man shouldn't be a super-legislature - that has nothing to do with EXECUTING THE LAW.
Click to expand...
You're right it doesn't, it has to do with STOPPING more laws. You really don't understood that the founders set up this republic with as much protection from more government as possible.
 
TheDanold said:
No that should tell me about ONE time it was used. Try researching the THOUSANDS of other times it was used. I'm sure even a reverted Socialist would find some goodies in that bag.


You're right it doesn't, it has to do with STOPPING more laws. You really don't understood that the founders set up this republic with as much protection from more government as possible.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand common sense. I don't believe in an elect-your-dictator system. America was simply lucky, most nations that have tried the flawed system of the founders have collapsed, only becoming stable again after deposing their dictators and setting up a parliamentary system. Parliamentarism developed through evolution. A bunch of men sat in a room and dreamed up the "perfect system" and came up with presidentialism. We all know how that goes, don't we - free market vs. communism.
 
THe greatest part of the constitution was the bill of rights. The rest doesn't really matter. It was set up by a bunch of people who wanted a compromise between monarchy and republicanism.
 
But, you know, it isn't a direct equation. Making it more difficult to pass legislation /= better government. The LP has a 7/8ths requirement to pass changes in the party - well, you know, damn sure nothing ever changes. I'm sure you'd like that though, still able to own slaves and all..
 
Watermark said:
You really don't understand common sense.
Click to expand...
Teach it to me, O bastion of calm non-emo objectiveness!

Watermark said:
I don't believe in an elect-your-dictator system.
Click to expand...
Neither do I. Dictators have the power to do whatever they want, the president has the power to STOP congress from doing whatever they want.
Try another bullshit comparison.

Watermark said:
America was simply lucky,
Click to expand...
Wrong, a system that has more checks and balances will always have a better chance of withstanding giant destructive changes or ideas/programs of the time that can come with certain periods where it can be momentarily fashionable to do them.

Watermark said:
most nations that have tried the flawed system of the founders have collapsed, only becoming stable again after deposing their dictators and setting up a parliamentary system. Parliamentarism developed through evolution. A bunch of men sat in a room and dreamed up the "perfect system" and came up with presidentialism. We all know how that goes, don't we - free market vs. communism.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, what other nation copied us?
Parliaments are the definition of rubber stamping whatever their prime minister wishes or members are booted out of caucus and can risk losing their power to votes of non-confidence. America has many politicians on both sides that often vote against the grain of their party.
And our upper chamber of the senate is fully accountable, unlike the appointed senate in Canada or the untouchable house of lords in Britain.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. I regret not taking the chance to encourage you to have read some basic Libertarian staples when you were open-minded enough a year ago to do so. Too late for you I think, but I think you make a good warning for all of the more senior freedom minded people here to get more involved in helping grow people who are curious about Libertarianism or lose them to being disgruntled manic and depressive cynical Liberal/Socialist slimeballs who pretend that Libertarianism is something they honestly tried out and then decided didn't work and now feel they need to have government lord it out over the rest of America that just doesn't get what special people like them do.
 
You know, some other nations exist without the veto. They seem to being doing about as good as us. In fact, better, because they're not crippled by conservatism.

Why does more democracy prevent dictatorshipo, Dano? You seem to believe at every step that keeping as much power out of the hands of people is as good as it can be. Just like the ignorant conservative you are. Well, you know Dano, the more you make things harder to change, the more you concentrate power into the hands of a few elites. A democracy becomes a dictatorship whenever a majority holds the exact same position. A "reserved" democracy becomes a dictatorship long before that.
 
Waterhead said:
But, you know, it isn't a direct equation. Making it more difficult to pass legislation /= better government.
Click to expand...
Do you mean !=
You always did suck at trying to imitate RS...

Waterhead said:
The LP has a 7/8ths requirement to pass changes in the party - well, you know, damn sure nothing ever changes.
Click to expand...
I get it, you're frustrated you couldn't change anything and being a Liberal Democrat again means plenty of change and you don't care that it's just status quo change of ever more government.

Waterhead said:
I'm sure you'd like that though, still able to own slaves and all..
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, slaves and freedom go together like 2 peas in a pod.
 
TheDanold said:
Do you mean !=
You always did suck at trying to imitate RS...


I get it, you're frustrated you couldn't change anything and being a Liberal Democrat again means plenty of change and you don't care that it's just status quo change of ever more government.


Oh yeah, slaves and freedom go together like 2 peas in a pod.
Click to expand...

NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH! NATIONAL HEALTHCARE IS COMING, DANO, JUST WAIT ANOTHER YEAR!!!

All your life you've been fighting against it, now you'll finally be benefitting. Just learn humility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top