i would have passed it. it's less sucky than the last thing, plus, we have the votes in congress to fix it in the long run

You tell em Paul!

You ... and all 7 of the other people in the country who think like you do!

I think that, in the long run, defeating this bill will cost the forces that oppose government intervention.

What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.

Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.

I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.

Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.

Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.

I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.

Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

You're confusing the institutionalization of Republicans in Congress with their philosophy. When the Republicans controlled all 3 branches during the Bush administration, they turned into Democrats and had record levels of earmarks and had no control over spending. They deserved to lose in 2006.

(03-25-2017 09:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.
Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.
I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.
Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

You're confusing the institutionalization of Republicans in Congress with their philosophy. When the Republicans controlled all 3 branches during the Bush administration, they turned into Democrats and had record levels of earmarks and had no control over spending. They deserved to lose in 2006.

Not confusing anything. That's kind of my point, how different what they have done since the turn of the century, in particular, is from what has been their historic philosophy. When they are not true to that philosophy, that means the philosophy has changed.

And conservatives did support the war in Vietnam. But they didn't want endless, limited wars. Ike got Korea stopped. Nixon got Vietnam stopped after first expanding the bombing (but Watergate allowed the Communists to overrun the South). HW won the 1st Gulf War quickly and left. W finally won the continually coming back to life 2nd Gulf War before Obama allowed another Iraq War to start.

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.

Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.

I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.

Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

the only thing I would argue is the Ike reference....IMO, he was the last true builder and pragmatist...one could argue he had an advantage via the windfall from after winning wwII....

everything else is spot-on through my binoculars....

(03-25-2017 09:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 09:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.
Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.
I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.
Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

You're confusing the institutionalization of Republicans in Congress with their philosophy. When the Republicans controlled all 3 branches during the Bush administration, they turned into Democrats and had record levels of earmarks and had no control over spending. They deserved to lose in 2006.

Not confusing anything. That's kind of my point, how different what they have done since the turn of the century, in particular, is from what has been their historic philosophy. When they are not true to that philosophy, that means the philosophy has changed.

What they have done in office and what they say to get elected and put in the platform are different things. So that doesn't mean the Republicans as a whole have moved.

(03-25-2017 08:43 PM)EagleX Wrote:  I think that, in the long run, defeating this bill will cost the forces that oppose government intervention.

which contradicts FC faction's policy....

#pureirony

(03-25-2017 09:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  What they have done in office and what they say to get elected and put in the platform are different things. So that doesn't mean the Republicans as a whole have moved.

I care what they do in office. What they say to get elected is lies anyway, and that holds for both parties.

They voted Trump. They have moved.

I remember voting for Demoncrats at one time. Those were times when they weren't so far left and in my mind not devoid of any morality as they are now. Now, everything that is immoral and wrong are reasons for them to raise their flags in agreement and acceptance. And as Owl says in a nutshell are communists and socialists. What they see in these two ideas is beyond me. It seems most of their followers have never opened a history book nor see how badly the people in countries with a communist/socialist government fare. Perhaps they think it won't affect them. I wonder how they can avoid the suffering. Oh well, like Krushchev said, "we will bury you" but I don't think he ever thought it was going to be that easy. To see that 20, 30 years ago a dumb S like Bernie would garner so much support now as a socialist is unthinkable. I can only shake my head in disbelief.

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.

Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.

I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.

Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

The last REAL conservative was Goldwater. Since him? Just a bunch of big government neocons and globalists.

(03-25-2017 10:15 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 08:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see happening is that conservative and liberal are changing their meaning.
Conservatives of a generation ago would not have agreed with Shrub's increases in spending and in the size of the federal government, the resulting budget deficits, or his no-win wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they would not have been enthusiastic about his positions on social issues. I would attribute all of those changes to the migration of the neocons from the democrat side in the 1960s because of the rise of the antiwar, pro-drug, anti-traditional values wing on the democrat side. Remember, the anti-war, pro-drug protests started against LBJ, not a republican. Neocons are self-styled big-government conservatives. Big government isn't conservative; conservatives are small government.
I don't think Eisenhower would identify well with today's republicans, nor JFK with today's democrats. That comparison is made to reflect timing more that ideology, because I don't think Eisenhower lined up with the conservative wing of his party, but the same opinion has certainly been expressed multiple times about Reagan. It was Ike who warned of the military-industrial complex, and it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon after the attack on the barracks. Those would not be conservative republican moves today. Republicans still pay lip service to Main Street, but they haven't really reflected Main Street values in a long time.
Abortion would not have been the litmus test issue with either party in 1960. Both parties have moved a lot. I am probably just about diametrically opposed to every element of the neocon philosophy. I'm conservative on the issues they are liberal on, and liberal on the issues they are conservative on. I was much more comfortable with the republicans of the 1950s or 1960s than I am with the republicans of the 21st century. I have never been comfortable with the democrats, whom I have pretty much always regarded as socialists/communists.

The last REAL conservative was Goldwater. Since him? Just a bunch of big government neocons and globalists.

Pretty much.

Shrub told us in 2000 that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. Those would have been key conservative points 50 years ago. Shrub then went out and did 180 degrees opposite on both of them.

(03-25-2017 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Shrub told us in 2000 that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. Those would have been key conservative points 50 years ago. Shrub then went out and did 180 degrees opposite on both of them.

Yep...One of the reasons I don't trust a damn one of these jackwads in power to keep promises.

(03-25-2017 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Shrub told us in 2000 that he was going to reduce the size of the federal government and get us out of the nation-building business. Those would have been key conservative points 50 years ago. Shrub then went out and did 180 degrees opposite on both of them.

you told us earlier that you are a Paul familiar.

why do you call GWB43 "shrub", when you probably aren't qualified to carry his briefcase?