Liberals and conservatives....

Then just do it already.











Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

LOL

Oh, and the Civil War pretty much settled questions of secession or division without the consent of Congress. Gov. Perry should have done his homework a little better. Originally Posted by jdean208

Don't be too sure about such things. 30 years ago, only the wildest of the wild talked about things like this. Now it is the governor (even though he is a bit of a nut...lol). In another 30 years?...who knows.

Revolutions are begun by the activists. And the acitivists comprise only 10-20 percent of the population at either end of the spectrum. The 60-80 percent in the middle...just get up every day and do their job. Such is the case today...and such was the case back in the good ole revolutionary war that created this country.

Governments role is to quell discontent. As long as it does that...it stays in place. When it doesn't...its gone.

Like any political group doesn't have its share of nut jobs.

The Tea Party movement, a generic name for the growing disgust with out of control big government and spending, is growing and it is real. Any political party that wants to win elections ignores it or mocks it at its own peril. Your fellow Texan Ross Perot came out of the same sentiments and got Bush I beat by that hick governor from Arkansas. This movement is even bigger this time. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yes, she's a nut, but she's the most prominent candidate that they've put up for any office in the entire nation!! How can you seek to marginalize her. She's their biggest accomplishment. Their prize representative. And she got less than 20% of the vote in one of the 5 nuttiest States in the union.

Resorting to name calling and cacophony again, TTH? The party of tolerance that you espouse to sounds a lot more like the party of intolerance. Calling those of us who are protesting the big govt policies tea-baggers is another shining example of intolerance. I've been to the teaparties and they are against all big-govt spending including the BS bush piled on after 9/11. Brainwashed? Isn't that what the MSM or Huffington Post is doing to your mellon?

I've watched the videos of SEIU, funded by Soros and company, thugs beating on a tea party member. The videos of leftist protesters storming the stages of conservative speakers all funded by your "tolerant" party. The asshole that flew his plane into the IRS building was a BO supporter. The democrats founded the KKK, the democrats had Byrd, a KKK member, among their rank and file in the Senate. The asshole that shot up an Arkansas recruiting office was a lib-nut. In New Mexico your union assholes are hiring day-laborers to do their protesting for them. The company they are protesting is non-union, but does provide better benefits than the union and the union members are dropping their memberships to work for the non-union construction company. What happened to party of the people?

Abraham Lincoln was the FIRST Republican. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. Wisconsin, two ACORN members just indicted on FELONY VOTER FRAUD, with more to come; just can't win without cheating. These are democrats; when you look in the mirror can you, with a straight face, tell yourself that your party is the upstanding model for the future? Take a good look at your democratic leaders who are under ethics investigations from all sorts of improprieties. Do you honestly aspire to the BS Rahm is pulling? Rahm, what a shining example of your party. The party of tolerance my ass! Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Didn't rebut one single fact that I posted, I see. Yes, the Tea Baggers are the creation of the Republicans. They are no more independent than a man in the moon. As for the rest of you Faux News inspired rant, I won't even bother to try to sort it out.

Darn, if we had more Texans like TexTushHog we never would have had GWB to worry about!

I doubt we could even agree what liberalism and conservatism are, let alone whats right or wrong with them. Originally Posted by pjorourke

To point up the tenuousness of such simplified categorizations, consider the following question:

Was Richard Nixon a conservative or a liberal?

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

Darn, if we had more Texans like TexTushHog we never would have had GWB to worry about! Originally Posted by discreetgent

You want him?..Take him.

To point up the tenuousness of such simplified categorizations, consider the following question:

Was Richard Nixon a conservative or a liberal?

Anyone want to take a stab at it? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

He was a republican and not a conservative. If you need a comparison to illustrate the contrast, run his action and philosophy side by side with Barry Goldwater.

GW wasn't a conservative either. But everyone knows that right?
Oh yeah, neither was Theodore Roosevelt. Bully!

...Didn't rebut one single fact that I posted, I see. Yes, the Tea Baggers are the creation of the Republicans. They are no more independent than a man in the moon. As for the rest of you Faux News inspired rant, I won't even bother to try to sort it out. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

And you debated the topics I posted?

As far as Fox News, you don't know me and you have no idea where I get my news. When Rupert Murdoch tells people he's moving News Corp to Abu Dabi, I have no faith in that channel, not that I had much faith in it even during the primary. I don't agree with any news channel, including Fox, that promotes the left/right paradigm. I actually dislike Hannity and O'Reilly. Beck was entertaining on CNN, but he's not the same person on Fox.

You have obviously lost your powers of observation. As I have stated, I am not a republican and I am damn sure not a democrat. Even in your response quoted above, you still show intolerance for a true grass-roots movement and I think that scares you. Otherwise you wouldn't sound-bite a response link from a blog or opinion page. The Republicans and Democrats are both trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement.

GW wasn't a conservative either. But everyone knows that right?
Oh yeah, neither was Theodore Roosevelt. Bully! Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

see above

see above Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Dang, I gotta read?

LOl.

Partisanship

GW wasn't a conservative either. But everyone knows that right?
Oh yeah, neither was Theodore Roosevelt. Bully! Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

GW was not a conservative. He went against traditional conservative thought at nearly every turn. Heck, the government grew larger under him than any recent president since FDR--left or right. He spent money like a drunken sailor on liberty.

That is why I laugh at the notion of "CHANGE" with the folks sipping Obama's bathwater. His campaign should have been: "More of the Same."

Lastly, how dare you blaspheme the name of the greatest of all American Conservatives, Teddy Roosevelt?

LOL!!!!!

The Republicans and Democrats are both trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

What was it that Twain said about a pig's rump and politics?

He was a republican and not a conservative. Originally Posted by ANONONE

(referring to Nixon)

Exactly!

During his first term, Nixon declared himself a Keynesian and called for a large expansion of government spending. Here's an excerpt from his 1971 State of the Union address:

"We should take no comfort from the fact that the level of unemployment in this transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy is lower than in any peacetime year of the sixties.

This is not good enough for the man who is unemployed in the seventies. We must do better for workers in peacetime and we will do better.

To achieve this, I will submit an expansionary budget this year--one
that will help stimulate the economy and thereby open up new job opportunities for millions of Americans.

It will be a full employment budget, a budget designed to be in balance if the economy were operating at its peak potential. By spending as if we were at full employment, we will help to bring about full employment.

I ask the Congress to accept these expansionary policies--to accept the concept of a full employment budget. At the same time, I ask the Congress to cooperate in resisting expenditures that go beyond the limits of the full employment budget. For as we wage a campaign to bring about a widely shared prosperity, we must not reignite the fires of inflation and so undermine that prosperity.

With the stimulus and the discipline of a full employment budget, with the commitment of the independent Federal Reserve System to provide fully for the monetary needs of a growing economy, and with a much greater effort on the part of labor and management to make their wage and price decisions in the light of the national interest and their own self-interest--then for the worker, the farmer, the consumer, for Americans everywhere we shall gain the goal of a new prosperity: more jobs, more income, more profits, without inflation and without war.

This is a great goal, and one that we can achieve together."



Yes, he actually said that if we spent as though the economy were operating at full employment, we could thereby bring about full employment in the economy!

(To fans of Keynesian "stimulus" packages: How did that one work out?)

At the same time, he pressured the Burns Fed to goose monetary policy in order to assure his re-election in '72.

Some conservative!

GW was not a conservative. He went against traditional conservative thought at nearly every turn. Originally Posted by ANONONE

When GWB took office in 2001, the federal budget was about $1.8 trillion. By 2008, it had expanded to about $3 trillion. Between 2003 and 2006, we saw the most rapid year-over-year spending increases in modern history. And people still think those guys were conservatives!

Heck, the government grew larger under him than any recent president since FDR--left or right. He spent money like a drunken sailor on liberty. Originally Posted by ANONONE

Indeed. (Although it pains me to see drunken sailors so gratuitously insulted. My Dad was one in 1944-45, and he tells me he and his buddies were able to put away quite a bit of brew!)

But spending like drunken sailors isn't good enough for this new crew. They're intent on spending like drunken SMU trust fund brats!

(referring to Nixon)
But spending like drunken sailors isn't good enough for this new crew. They're intent on spending like drunken SMU trust fund brats! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Now that's funny!

. . .and no disrespect to your father. Mine was in the Army during WWII and did both theaters. His sailor phrase was heard often around the house, and I don't think is was out of disregard for the Navy, but more incredulity that they were able to spend money that way. In fact, i should probably avoid comparing the current administration to sailors or grunts as that is a slight to all that served in the military.

How do clowns spend money?