RNC

[Alyssa87]

CNN.. right now.

have a good night 8)

[hondarobot]

I'm watching it and making bbq meatballs at the moment, which seems appropriate. These people are just across the Mississippi river from me, and most are staying at a hotel two blocks from my apartment, right now! Good grief, talk about scary.

:whoa

[Alyssa87]

im sure more are going to be at the airport tonite.

[trannybanger]

Where did they find these speakers?? Horrible. That state senator from California was unbearable.

[Alyssa87]

no kidding.

these folks should sit in on a public speaking 101 class!

the singers of the nat'l anthem were painful as well!

[runamok]

It's like a Klan meeting, but only on laundry day.

[hondarobot]

im sure more are going to be at the airport tonite.

Words out on the airport, apparently. They'll probably cruise the library bathrooms now in an effort to appeal to swing voters.

[Alyssa87]

^ 2 best replies EVER.lmao

[hondarobot]

What I found really funny was while I was walking home from work today, I noticed that someone had wrote "Death Star" in chalk on the sidewalk just outside the hotel.

:lol:

[Alyssa87]

they should have written it in blood.

[Legend]

I'm not missing ghost hunters for that but i will catch the sarah palin speech.

[runamok]

Street Fighter IV is going to be friggen EPIC! I hear they're bringing Cammy back.

[stimpy17]

Let me help you with this;

Hate mongers.
Nazism.
Women beaters.
Out of touch with main stream America.
Haters.

Does that about cover it?
OH! One last thing, the next party in the White House.
Deal with it-LOL!!!!!!

[francisfkudrow]

As I just said to a friend of mine, I'd rather pull out one of my own teeth with a pair of pliers than watch the Republican convention.

[hondarobot]

The woman just talking looked like Mr. Toad from "The Wind In The Willows", and delivered like she was in grade school speech class. Apparently she runs Ebay, or something.

She got lucky at the right time, if that's the case, and now berates people who didn't have that luck going for them, because she's evil.

Honestly, I don't really know who she was.

:shrug

[trannybanger]

Think they might be pandering to minorities... just a bit?? Just a bit shameless and condescending, jesus they could use some help writing these speaches.

[trannybanger]

but Romney would be a hell of a host for The Price is Right.

[hondarobot]

Romney is a moron. He just referenced Big Brother during his idiotic nonsense. If he ever read "1984" he either didn't understand it all, given the nature of his speech, or understood it all too well.

The later is probably the case, which is really scary.

[PapaGrande]

Romney is a moron. He just referenced Big Brother during his idiotic nonsense. If he ever read "1984" he either didn't understand it all, given the nature of his speech, or understood it all too well.

The later is probably the case, which is really scary.

Except today "Big Brother" is both the GOP/Dems.

[hondarobot]

The Republicans are retarded. I'm watching that Huckabee clown right now on CNN who's stating that the point of running for office is: To have less government.

It's basically saying "Elect me, and I'll do even worse in that appointed position!"

It's Bizarro world.

:lol:

[PapaGrande]

The Republicans are retarded. I'm watching that Huckabee clown right now on CNN who's stating that the point of running for office is: To have less government.

It's basically saying "Elect me, and I'll do even worse in that appointed position!"

It's Bizarro world.

:lol:

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome! You must be the Democrats dream voter.

Huckabee is scary because he believes Jesus talks to him, not because he thinks there should be less government.

You totally reconfirm my lack of faith in Democracy
:P

[runamok]

Let me help you with this;

Hate mongers.
Nazism.
Women beaters.
Out of touch with main stream America.
Haters.

Does that about cover it?
OH! One last thing, the next party in the White House.
Deal with it-LOL!!!!!!

To contribute...

~ Cross Humpers
~ Frightened by Science
~ Xenophobic
~ White Nationalists
~ Rich Elitist (or wannabees)

~ Frightened and easily confused with change. So y'know dicks on a chick angers, arouses and shames them simultaneously.


Think they might be pandering to minorities... just a bit?? Just a bit shameless and condescending, jesus they could use some help writing these speaches.

Notice how they ain't repeating that talking point about the "illegals are taking our jobs" nonsense, right? No talk of building that fence between Mexico and us, eh? Any Minutemen addressing the sheep tonight?

They're desperately hoping that the Hispanics are going to counter the overwhelming Black votes for Obama. LOL

[Paladin]

Romney is a moron. He just referenced Big Brother during his idiotic nonsense. If he ever read "1984" he either didn't understand it all, given the nature of his speech, or understood it all too well.

The later is probably the case, which is really scary.

Except today "Big Brother" is both the GOP/Dems.

Um, folks, it s the DEMS that want to take away your firearms and make gas so expensive that only they (the rich elite dems) can afford it!

Then they can lock us all up in megalopolis' and the movie escape from new york will become a reality :shock:

[hondarobot]

The Republicans are retarded. I'm watching that Huckabee clown right now on CNN who's stating that the point of running for office is: To have less government.

It's basically saying "Elect me, and I'll do even worse in that appointed position!"

It's Bizarro world.

:lol:

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome! You must be the Democrats dream voter.

Huckabee is scary because he believes Jesus talks to him, not because he thinks there should be less government.

You totally reconfirm my lack of faith in Democracy
:P

Do you understand what a politician does? They are the foundation of a government, whatever form that is. What do you think these people do? The conservatives take advantage of stupidity. It works, because most people are stupid.

It's not that hard to figure out.

[hondarobot]

That was weird. It was like watching the Reichstag being burned. These people are crazy.

Reference: CNN 9:15 pm central time. I'm sure it will be on Youtube soon.

[Alyssa87]

Obama's camp is NOT belittling her experience as mayor. its the media. my goodness!

i hate this bitch already.

[Alyssa87]

she didnt mention health care
or America's foreign policy & diplomacyhttp://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif

[hondarobot]

She's totally evil, but she did a good job at that speech. That doesn't detract from her evil factor, but she did a good job there.

[hondarobot]

I have to think about this. Good night.

[Legend]

she didnt mention health care
or America's foreign policy & diplomacyhttp://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif


Thats because she doesn't know shit about any of those things,all she can do is attack obama and biden.Just wait until debating starts she will get crushed.

[Legend]

The thing that pisses me off is that obama or biden didn't attack her at the democratic convention but she was like a pitbull.Now i see the democrats attacking her left and right and basically holding back nothing.

[Alyssa87]

she didnt mention health care
or America's foreign policy & diplomacyhttp://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif


Thats because she doesn't know shit about any of those things,all she can do is attack obama and biden.Just wait until debating starts she will get crushed.

nah she'll spew the talking points and sprinkle some more cutting comments for variety.
then she'll be praised on how knowledgeable she is :shock:

[Alyssa87]

The thing that pisses me off is that obama or biden didn't attack her at the democratic convention but she was like a pitbull.Now i see the democrats attacking her left and right and basically holding back nothing.

nah, i liked the way he dismissed Hillary when she pitbull'd em.
they should call her on her shit WHEN she makes false claims. but not in the small manner she went about it tonite.

[Solitary Brother]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved but i digress.

I kinda like the crazy republican VP woman.
No..not her politics silly her demeanor.
You have to admit shes a likabe person.

I will leave now.

[Alyssa87]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved

well i dont diss anyone like you do. youre pretty cold.

[PapaGrande]

The Republicans are retarded. I'm watching that Huckabee clown right now on CNN who's stating that the point of running for office is: To have less government.

It's basically saying "Elect me, and I'll do even worse in that appointed position!"

It's Bizarro world.

:lol:

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome! You must be the Democrats dream voter.

Huckabee is scary because he believes Jesus talks to him, not because he thinks there should be less government.

You totally reconfirm my lack of faith in Democracy
:P

Do you understand what a politician does? They are the foundation of a government, whatever form that is. What do you think these people do? The conservatives take advantage of stupidity. It works, because most people are stupid.

It's not that hard to figure out.

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

[Solitary Brother]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved

well i dont diss anyone like you do. youre pretty cold.

Oh really?
In comparison to whom?
There are some viscous bastards on this board I am pretty mild actually.
Who have i been cold too?

[Alyssa87]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved

well i dont diss anyone like you do. youre pretty cold.

Oh really?
In comparison to whom?
There are some viscous bastards on this board I am pretty mild actually.
Who have i been cold too?

mz. justice comes to mind.

[Realgirls4me]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

[Solitary Brother]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved

well i dont diss anyone like you do. youre pretty cold.

Oh really?
In comparison to whom?
There are some viscous bastards on this board I am pretty mild actually.
Who have i been cold too?

mz. justice comes to mind.

How many people has she called a "faggot"?
She is probably a nice person.
I was just commenting on her passability.
I like her actually and was only playing with her.
Look.
I have been called everything except the devil incarnate on this board.
Stuff just doesnt bother me anymore because I know i will ALWAYS been seen as the villan no matter what I do.
I dont hate anyone on this board except the republican closet cases and thats not any girl.

Good night.

[Legend]

The thing that pisses me off is that obama or biden didn't attack her at the democratic convention but she was like a pitbull.Now i see the democrats attacking her left and right and basically holding back nothing.

nah, i liked the way he dismissed Hillary when she pitbull'd em.
they should call her on her shit WHEN she makes false claims. but not in the small manner she went about it tonite.

Good point i forgot about those attacks by hil he just brushed off.

[Stoked]

she didnt mention health care
or America's foreign policy & diplomacyhttp://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif


Thats because she doesn't know shit about any of those things,all she can do is attack obama and biden.Just wait until debating starts she will get crushed.

nah she'll spew the talking points and sprinkle some more cutting comments for variety.
then she'll be praised on how knowledgeable she is :shock:

Nice to see you think of Palin debating as the presidential candidate...

[Stoked]

Daaaamn!
Alyssa getting all political up in here.
I guess(I KNOW) your better liked here which is why your political thread is 4+ pages and mine was only two posts and was moved but i digress.

I kinda like the crazy republican VP woman.
No..not her politics silly her demeanor.
You have to admit shes a likabe person.

I will leave now.

She is lickable... er... likable... thats why she is scaring the bejesus out of everyone. She's more like someone you know than elitist politicians, including Obama ben Biden, for that reason alone people will trust her.

She's hot too. (couldnt resist)

One last thing... she had a lot to prove tonight and she pulled it off almost perfectly, she has proven herself to be a formidable opponent.

The next few months will be fun, thats for sure.

[Legend]

Legend, ya got to put down the comic books once in a while man.

DNC convention: August 25-28, 2008.

McCain announces Palin pick: August 29, 2008.




The thing that pisses me off is that obama or biden didn't attack her at the democratic convention but she was like a pitbull.Now i see the democrats attacking her left and right and basically holding back nothing.


Nope never happening politics aren't my thing and if i get my facts incorrect i will easily thank whom ever corrected me.I truly meant to say was they did not attack her out of the gate just because she is a woman they did not question why her daughter at 17 is pregnant nor they question anything about her experinece.I think after last night they probably will go medieval on her ass now.I have never voted in my life but i will definitely cast my vote this election.I want to be a part of history.

[tg4me]

I think McCain had everything to lose tonight.

She was better than I thought she would be. It was her first speech ever in front of a huge (loving)crowd.
Both she and Guliani hit home runs tonight.

It's looking like a shrewed move. If you attack her for her lack of expirience, it reflects on Obama as well. Biden must be as careful too. He can't come off as overly aggressive or condesending during the debates.

[PapaGrande]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

No, I'm not OK with it. Republicans have consistently betrayed their promises for smaller government. On the other side you have Democrats that don't even pretend to care how large the government grows.
BTW "size" has more to do with just how much the Federal government spends, there are other factors, such as size in terms of how many people are on the public payroll, and more importantly the scope of government, as is what is it chartered to do. There is also the issue that its Congress that creates laws, the President can sign or veto, but sometimes they end up signing stuff they don't really agree with, especially when different parties control the White House and Congress. Deals and compromises are made all the time. Do you think Clinton agreed 100% with everything he signed? That is the nature of the game. Personally I view it more as collusion, as in both parties working together to keep themselves in power, their cronies getting paid, and keep us getting screwed.

Both parties are to blame for the explosive growth in government spending. In 1994 there were 4000 earmarks added to bills, by 2005 this had increased to 16,000, and that is actually chump change to overall government spending. In 1994 the Federal budget was $1.5 trillion, in 2008, its almost $3 trillion. You could cut the Federal budget in half and still spend as much as when Clinton took office in 1993, hell you could cut about 1/3 (about $1 trillion) and be spending at the peak of the Clinton administration, and there is a lot of talk about how great things were back then.

I know most of you here think all the wonderful new government spending Obama is promising isn't going to cost you anything, but you are mistaken, if anyone is objective enough I will happily point you in the right direction.

OK, back to Reagan, I'm not sure why you brought him up? I guess because you guessed (wrong) that I was a Republican and therefore a Reagan lover.

Reagan was bad on spending, but overall Federal spending as a % of GDP was slightly down under Reagan. The biggest issue IMO was the quadrupling of the national debt under Reagan. He did do some good things economically speaking that the economy benefited from under later Presidents. People don't seem to realize with a behemoth as large as our government, the effects of changes in law may not be fully felt for years or even decades later.
For as bad as Reagan was Bush (current one) is even worse. His supporters (whats left of them) will claim that increased government spending was necessary due to the war(s), without even getting into a debate about the wars themselves this is false because even when you remove Iraq and Afghanistan spending Bush still oversaw an increase in discretionary spending of 30%. Bush created a huge new unfunded entitlement, the prescription drug benefit, the largest in decades, and also created another huge government bureaucracy with the Dept. of Homeland Security. Thats just related to government spending in general, but he also increased the governments payroll (and tried to hide it by hiring more contractors and then claiming he reduced the amount of Federal workers), and probably the worst offenses of all were his power grab for the executive branch and his assault on our civil liberties.

Hopefully this sufficiently illustrates that someone who doest like Democrats isn't automatically a Republican. There are more points of view of just these two groups, who are really two sides of the same coin anyway.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

[Stoked]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

No, I'm not OK with it. Republicans have consistently betrayed their promises for smaller government. On the other side you have Democrats that don't even pretend to care how large the government grows.
BTW "size" has more to do with just how much the Federal government spends, there are other factors, such as size in terms of how many people are on the public payroll, and more importantly the scope of government, as is what is it chartered to do. There is also the issue that its Congress that creates laws, the President can sign or veto, but sometimes they end up signing stuff they don't really agree with, especially when different parties control the White House and Congress. Deals and compromises are made all the time. Do you think Clinton agreed 100% with everything he signed? That is the nature of the game. Personally I view it more as collusion, as in both parties working together to keep themselves in power, their cronies getting paid, and keep us getting screwed.

Both parties are to blame for the explosive growth in government spending. In 1994 there were 4000 earmarks added to bills, by 2005 this had increased to 16,000, and that is actually chump change to overall government spending. In 1994 the Federal budget was $1.5 trillion, in 2008, its almost $3 trillion. You could cut the Federal budget in half and still spend as much as when Clinton took office in 1993, hell you could cut about 1/3 (about $1 trillion) and be spending at the peak of the Clinton administration, and there is a lot of talk about how great things were back then.

I know most of you here think all the wonderful new government spending Obama is promising isn't going to cost you anything, but you are mistaken, if anyone is objective enough I will happily point you in the right direction.

OK, back to Reagan, I'm not sure why you brought him up? I guess because you guessed (wrong) that I was a Republican and therefore a Reagan lover.

Reagan was bad on spending, but overall Federal spending as a % of GDP was slightly down under Reagan. The biggest issue IMO was the quadrupling of the national debt under Reagan. He did do some good things economically speaking that the economy benefited from under later Presidents. People don't seem to realize with a behemoth as large as our government, the effects of changes in law may not be fully felt for years or even decades later.
For as bad as Reagan was Bush (current one) is even worse. His supporters (whats left of them) will claim that increased government spending was necessary due to the war(s), without even getting into a debate about the wars themselves this is false because even when you remove Iraq and Afghanistan spending Bush still oversaw an increase in discretionary spending of 30%. Bush created a huge new unfunded entitlement, the prescription drug benefit, the largest in decades, and also created another huge government bureaucracy with the Dept. of Homeland Security. Thats just related to government spending in general, but he also increased the governments payroll (and tried to hide it by hiring more contractors and then claiming he reduced the amount of Federal workers), and probably the worst offenses of all were his power grab for the executive branch and his assault on our civil liberties.

Hopefully this sufficiently illustrates that someone who doest like Democrats isn't automatically a Republican. There are more points of view of just these two groups, who are really two sides of the same coin anyway.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

Thank you, that may have been the best quick summation of our government I have read.

Unfortunately, as you know, too many people believe more government regulation and handouts are the answer to their, and everyones problems. Fiscal responsibility is not our nations strong point, either on a personal level or, and especially, from our elected representatives.

[BlkJewels]

F**K the RNC a.k.a wink wink klan rally. Send sum of them mooseburgers down to Louisiana. VP's r moot anyways. Ask Quayle.

[fitz207]

With the GOP and the liberal blogosphere having set the bar so unfeasibly low, Palin comfortably exceeded expectations. And to be fair, she delivered the speech fine and used the time usefully to introduce herself more to the American public.

But where she fell down was in trotting out some of the cookie cutter tired GOP partisan attacks on Obama. People simply are not going to buy the line that she has more experience than Obama. By attacking him with that line and also the very tired "cling to guns" line, she becomes very quickly just another Republican. Two more months of this and she is not going to do anything for the ticket save for shore up the base. The idea that she will reach across to Hillary supporters dies the minute she becomes just another GOP Rovian attack dog.

Also, by taking the gloves off herself, she cannot complain when her own words and policies are parsed. Thus far she has had a free pass on the issues and she has been shielded from the media as the campaign team are petrified of what might happen if she gets a grilling by a competent journalist. For instance, how does she answer the question "Is it appropriate for a potential VP to say that the Iraq war was a mission of God?" or "Why should women vote for you when you believe that if they or their daughters are raped, they should have to bear the child to term?".

The GOP may think that last night means that she has answered all the questions about her suitability. The only question she answered is that she is a capable politician who can deliver a partisan speech written for her by George Bush's speechwriter. Her speech utterly devoid of any policy content or substance. Mind you, Rick Davis (McCain campaign manager) said that "this election is not about the issues" so at least the GOP are being honest as to their campaign strategy.

[runamok]

she didnt mention health care
or America's foreign policy & diplomacyhttp://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/45.gif

Health Care & Diplomacy to the elite, hyper-rich Republicans? If it's not about 9/11, ZOMG Mooslimbs TERRORISTS, Gay marriage, abortion, taxes, and NOT being able to hate non-whites--they could care less. Especially about poor people.

The only things on their minds right now is stopping the black guy from being president.

[hippifried]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

[PapaGrande]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.

[Stoked]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base by increasing government spending.

[trish]

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base...


The base is too small to account for such a small rating. He has a tiny rating because he's a fuck up who fuck up again and again. The only idiots remaining on his side are those who are too stubborn to admit they were wrong about him even when they know it.

[Stoked]

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base...


The base is too small to account for such a small rating. He has a tiny rating because he's a fuck up who fuck up again and again. The only idiots remaining on his side are those who are too stubborn to admit they were wrong about him even when they know it.

Its just shocking how little critical thinking you do, in every post you make.

[yodajazz]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

...
...
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

I’m just arguing in a very general sense. I’m not even saying that government should not be reduced.

I think that most people would say that the government’s job is to protect them, and to provide for the general welfare. I would define general welfare, as things like promoting economic growth and communication, supporting scientific advancements, and efficiency, etc. In fact I challenge you to think of any government agency that is not trying to do one of those two general categories.

Smaller government means taking away from one of those two categories. Somebody has to give up some protection, or be left more to fend for themselves. Some government investments have paid off handsomely to the American public. The interstate highway system is an often cited example. Many government programs actually save society more in the long run. By help to prevent negative things like crime or promoting healthful activities, or help to strengthen families.

So someone could argue that if a politician’s whose primary goal is cut government is missing on the primary function of government. But I even heard Obama say in an interview that some government services would have to be cut in order to fund programs of the future. He said that some tough choices would have to be made. So despite many claims to the contrary Obama has spoken about reducing the size of some government programming. (Which would be for the sake of financial management). But I believe he would list his primary duty as to protect and promote.

I say that we could save a lot of money in the area of the Defense budget. They cannot even account for a lot of money they spend, in the trillions.

[Stoked]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

...
...
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

I’m just arguing in a very general sense. I’m not even saying that government should not be reduced.

I think that most people would say that the government’s job is to protect them, and to provide for the general welfare. I would define general welfare, as things like promoting economic growth and communication, supporting scientific advancements, and efficiency, etc. In fact I challenge you to think of any government agency that is not trying to do one of those two general categories.

Smaller government means taking away from one of those two categories. Somebody has to give up some protection, or be left more to fend for themselves. Some government investments have paid off handsomely to the American public. The interstate highway system is an often cited example. Many government programs actually save society more in the long run. By help to prevent negative things like crime or promoting healthful activities, or help to strengthen families.

So someone could argue that if a politician’s whose primary goal is cut government is missing on the primary function of government. But I even heard Obama say in an interview that some government services would have to be cut in order to fund programs of the future. He said that some tough choices would have to be made. So despite many claims to the contrary Obama has spoken about reducing the size of some government programming. (Which would be for the sake of financial management). But I believe he would list his primary duty as to protect and promote.

I say that we could save a lot of money in the area of the Defense budget. They cannot even account for a lot of money they spend, in the trillions.

I'm thinking cut the entire military budget. That way when we have 9/11 happening all over the country, you will be happy to report we didnt offend, kill or otherwise insult anyones feelings.

[francisfkudrow]

In virtually every field of human endeavor, those considered best in the field are a) good in that field and b) promote, like and have an interest in the field they're in. Not so in American politics. The best politicians are considered those that despise necessary and effective government and those that are not very good at creating an effective government. (What better way to prove that government is the problem than by making the government ineffective?)

You wouldn't want a heart surgeon who despised working on hearts and questioned the need for a healthy heart, would you?

But yet we let people govern that hate effective and necessary government. (I keep saying "effective" and "necessary" because conservatives still love unnecessary, undesirable, and ineffective forms of government such as laws against abortion, gay marriage, etc.) Basically everywhere you want government; protecting the environment, protecting the little guy from big corporations, etc., the GOP is absent, and everywhere where you don't want government (your bedroom) there they are. Defense is of course the one exception; something that is necessary that they like spending money on, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

To look at it another way, if you governed your own household the way the Republicans govern our country, no repairs would ever be done on the house, the only yard work that would be done is that which can be done by the kids without costing anything, and virtually nothing would be spent on those kids' education, but every waking moment of those kids' lives would be monitored for signs of immoral behavior and you'd always be ready to attack one of your neighbors.

Lousy way to run a household or a country if you ask me.

[hippifried]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.
Well those have been the perceptions for a while now. I'm not so sure they still are. What makes it different now is that the country has seen first hand the result of republican policy. Prior to 2001, they'd only controlled either the Whitehouse or the Congress. The Supreme court has been controlled by republican appointees since Eisenhower. When President Bush (43) took office, they had complete control of the entire federal government for the first time in a very long time. They were like kids in a candy store & there' was nobody from their own party trying to stop the madness. Now my grandchildren are in debt & so are everybody else's. The size of the government has balooned like never before. Despite the rhetoric & the lies about agendas & motivations that always come with the silly season attacks, the public is paying attention & nobody has promised to increase spending.

[yodajazz]

I'm thinking cut the entire military budget. That way when we have 9/11 happening all over the country, you will be happy to report we didnt offend, kill or otherwise insult anyones feelings.

Very immature response brother Stoked. People like you complain about goverment money being spent, but refuse to even look at the highest expenditure of goverment, war related items. What to you say about the cost effectiveness of the Iraq war? What are the benefits gained vs the costs?

The United States and the Soviet Union faced off for many in a military stand off. The major thing that brought the Soviet Union was economics. They could not provide consumer goods to keep people satisfied. People rebelled against a system that could not provide them with thier daily needs. I remember when it was said that toliet paper was not available in large parts of their country. Many say it was because they invested too much in the military.

Your goverment manipulates you, by using fear, into giving them a blank check with no oversight as to how it is spent. Even Donald Rumsfeld once said that the Dept of Defense could not account for 2.5 trillion dollars of spending (Sept 10, 2001). I heard it coming from his mouth, on a YouTube video. You cry about your money going to 'undeserving' people, yet you are not even asking for an accounting of who spends the majority of your money.

I remember reading in my daily news paper, about a year ago that 18(?) million dollars of weapons were unaccounted for in Iraq. We are talking about a war zone. Did those weapons fall into 'enemy' hands?
That is inexcusable, yet I never heard anything else about it. And what about the overcharging for contractors services that was discovered?

I believe that you are an intelligent person brother Stoked. I'm saying that you should be looking at a bigger picture, based upon reality, not fear. It's not about politics, it's a matter of cost effectiveness.

So I'll repeat my question, and ask you about the cost effectiveness of the war in Iraq? Then down the road we can put other items through the same proceedure, brother.