Brian Nystrom
I agree that's troubling, but it would only get worse if the Democrats
controlled everything again. The only reason that government got smaller
under Clinton was that he wasn't able to get Hillay's outrageous health
care program through Congress. It was so outlandish that even the
Democrats wouldn't vote for it. After '94, the Republicans kept him in
check.

Even as the current Republican Congress blocked the current President
from just having his way regarding 9/11 Commission. I don't expect
there is any free sliding by to be had. Of course there will be a few
more R congressmen, and a few less D in the next congress, so yet to
be seen how that goes!

This is the rest of the story as PH says. The Ds can rant about
President Bush, but the real problem is they lost more ground in the
Senate and House. If they had made gains there, I suspect that we
would not be hearing so much about Bush. They have to digest this
double loss, and face the prospect of losing in the Supreme Court as
well. An unenviable position.

Oci-One wrote:

The Republicans will never cut the programs that provide jobs or lower
commodity and services costs for the heartland "conservatives". They
would prefer to (hypocritically) subsidize a farm family that votes

Thats right, and who was it that set up those programs in the first
place. It was not the CFRs, but now you want them to cut the Programs.
Your man could have cut the programs when he was President, and think
how much more a surplus he could have shown. Why didn't He? That is
right, they vote!


*against* Big Gubmint than to provide food and heating oil for the
children of a single mom (so what if Mom is a dirtbag; I'm talking
about her children here

I believe there are programs to subsidize heating bills so that the
children do not get cold or hungry. Unless the funds have all been
sucked up by greedy administrator, who tap into that lifeline for
their own benefit, and then want more and always for the children.

-- but Christians don't understand such fine
distinctions) in a big city. Personally, I don't mind subsidizing the
heartland counties, but then, I'm a "big gubmint" liberal, and
compassionate enough to want to care for my fellow Americans in the
depressed areas, even if they are stupid, uneducated, and hypocritical
enough to vote *against* the very Big Gubmint that sustains them.

The people in the urban area, typically voted for Kerry who promised
them more hand outs, for their vote. And that was stupid, and I
suppose you could say uneducated, because after the 30 years of
progect lives, you would think they would get educated that those type
of programs don't work. The hypocrisy is on the part of those who make
the promises, election cycle after cycle, with no intention of ever
paying up!

Brian wrote:

Fine, feel free to donate as much of your income as you see fit. The IRS
WILL accept extra tax contributions. Just don't expect anyone with any
sense to follow your lead. If you reall want to help people, it's FAR
more efficient to donate to a charity that supports those you want to
help than it is to give it to politicians to redistribute.

There is not an economist in the country who will tell you (with a
straight face) that the Republicans are fiscally conservative (that's
why I am no longer a Republican.)

Are you saying you were a Republican, now that is embarassing!

Granted, they have strayed badly and need to be reigned back in.

They will maintain the programs
that sustain the rednecks, to keep their voting base, and they will
maintain the anti-free-market policies that sustain the corporations,
to keep their financial base.

So now Democrats are supposed to be the free market party??? That's
hilarious!

Well said Brian!!!!

What the Republicans ARE is SOCIALLY
conservative, and that is like ****ing in the wind; society will
change whether they want it to or not. People will use dope whether
it is legal or not. Homos will screw homos whether the good
Christians like it or not. And women will get abortions, whether they
are legal or not. The only way they can keep society from changing
socially is to institute police-state tactics (where is John Ashcroft
when we need him?) and to keep NeoCons in power by keeping the
Terrorist Alert level up there around Orange to keep people
frightened, whether there is any proximate cause or not.

It's funny how society backlashes against these changes periodically.
While we can never go back to the 50's, the pace of change can be slowed
so that changes can be assimilated more gradually and with less societal
trauma. The real problem is our "instant gratification" mindset. The
simple truth that we can't have it all right now.

Again well said Brian!!!!

That's because the politicians -- and 50% of the voting public -- are
morons.

Oh, yeah, I forgot that liberals are the annointed keepers of all
knowledge and truth. Please forgive me.


Ah yes, the classic liberal response. Ever notice that when
conservatives lose an election, they become introspective and ask "where
did we go wrong", but when liberals lose, they become indignant and
immediately start pointing fingers and blaming the public for "being
stupid" and "not understanding". Afterall, they are pre-ordained to
rule, right? What liberals don't get is that you lose because people DO
understand! They absolutely get it and they're SMART enough to reject
it! As long as liberals live in a world of denial, they'll never
succeed. So, keep up the good work!

Having called 50% of the voters Morons, reannointed themselves as
keepers of all that is true, and pointed their fingers and blamed
eveyone except themselves, for why they lost the last election. They
are now ready to prepare for the next election, by making every
possible emotional appeal to all the Morons of why they should vote
for them, because they are the Ones, and us over here are not the
Ones. Good strategy, keep it up! Or get a message, that you can
convince us you really believe!

Good job Brian, hang in there and keep paddlin'!

Respectfully, Tinkerntom, aka Knesisknosis, Life, Live it!