Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

[hammegk]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Garthwaite20040129.shtml

Nationwide, nearly 20,000 Conservatives in over 500 cities have signed up to network and organize at the local level.

Hil may get her wish. This effort began a couple weeks ago. I sense some significant political-economic clout emerging.

Dems/Deaniacs are not the only people with internet access.

[Luke T.]

Be afraid. Be very afraid. (http://www.thbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6230)

[Charlie Monoxide]

Great link Luke! They really captured her stern, determined look.

Charlie (will her head fit up her butt?) Monoxide

[hammegk]

Keep joking; you'll wish your hatred for Ann will do it for you.

Here are a couple more reasons demorats will get buried in 04.

Domestic policy:

So Bush's presidency, which seals his party's coming-to-terms with the need to put strong government in the service of conservative values, is neither a surrender to the liberal agenda nor an armistice in the struggle over whether social policy should emphasize equality or freedom. Rather, it liberates Republicans to adopt reforms in the provision of education, health care and pensions. Such reforms will drive Democrats into reactionary liberalism: defense of the dependency culture and its increasing constriction of individuals' choices.

Republicans plan to sacrifice some equality to promote individualism. Democrats want to limit freedom of choice in order to promote the social solidarity of equal dependence on government provision of services. Nov. 2 may indeed reshape relations between the individual and the federal government that was born after 1932.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040201.shtml


Foreign policy:
Consider these accomplishments:

· Osama bin Laden is hiding in a cave, whispering idle threats into a tape recorder.

· Saddam Hussein is out of power and in custody.

· Afghanistan soon will elect a democratic government.

· Libya has agreed to end its nuclear weapons program.

· India and Pakistan say they are committed to a peaceful resolution of their differences.

All these represent important steps toward a more secure world. And they all happened because the United States showed international leadership and projected power.

Our friends on the left take a slightly different view.

They claim we’re not safer with Saddam behind bars. They accuse us of “forgetting about” Afghanistan. They would have us believe Libya is voluntarily stuffing the nuclear genie back in the bottle. They pretend that our strong actions to crack down on terrorists, wherever they are, had nothing to do with Pakistan’s decision to end guerrilla warfare and open peace talks with India.

They’re wrong.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/edwinfeulner/ef20040201.shtml

Any constructive thoughts out there? :(

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by hammegk
Keep joking; you'll wish your hatred for Ann will do it for you.

Here are a couple more reasons demorats will get buried in 04.

Domestic policy:

So Bush's presidency, which seals his party's coming-to-terms with the need to put strong government in the service of conservative values, is neither a surrender to the liberal agenda nor an armistice in the struggle over whether social policy should emphasize equality or freedom. Rather, it liberates Republicans to adopt reforms in the provision of education, health care and pensions. Such reforms will drive Democrats into reactionary liberalism: defense of the dependency culture and its increasing constriction of individuals' choices.

Republicans plan to sacrifice some equality to promote individualism. Democrats want to limit freedom of choice in order to promote the social solidarity of equal dependence on government provision of services. Nov. 2 may indeed reshape relations between the individual and the federal government that was born after 1932.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040201.shtml


Foreign policy:


Consider these accomplishments:

· Osama bin Laden is hiding in a cave, whispering idle threats into a tape recorder.

· Saddam Hussein is out of power and in custody.

· Afghanistan soon will elect a democratic government.

· Libya has agreed to end its nuclear weapons program.

· India and Pakistan say they are committed to a peaceful resolution of their differences.

All these represent important steps toward a more secure world. And they all happened because the United States showed international leadership and projected power.

Our friends on the left take a slightly different view.

They claim we’re not safer with Saddam behind bars. They accuse us of “forgetting about” Afghanistan. They would have us believe Libya is voluntarily stuffing the nuclear genie back in the bottle. They pretend that our strong actions to crack down on terrorists, wherever they are, had nothing to do with Pakistan’s decision to end guerrilla warfare and open peace talks with India.

They’re wrong.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/edwinfeulner/ef20040201.shtml

Any constructive thoughts out there? :(


Am I the only one here who is looking at the Domestic Policy and seeing huge budget deffecit problems.

How the f*** does lowering the income tax work, while installing newer social institutions.

It makes no sense unless you are going into deffecit spending, which will make the economy go into a bear market again.



Questions to you hammegk:

1. How safe do you feel knowing that Osama, mastermind of the 9/11 plot, is still out there?

2. Weren't the reason for going to war in Iraq illegitimate in the firstplace, I mean come on, no WMD's?

3. Do you feel safer that under a Democratically elected government in Afghanistan, the Opium industry there will boom, thus amking more illegal drugs readily avaliable?

4. How does Libya ending it's Nuclear Weapons program help us any? He** we have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over by now.

5. Do you really think the peace will hold between Pakistan and India? It is extremely doubtful considering the intense nationalism on both sides.

[clk]

Originally posted by hammegk
Keep joking; you'll wish your hatred for Ann will do it for you.

Here are a couple more reasons demorats will get buried in 04.

Domestic policy:



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20040201.shtml


Foreign policy:



http://www.townhall.com/columnists/edwinfeulner/ef20040201.shtml

Any constructive thoughts out there? :(

I find it amusing that you were able to spin Bush's inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to capture OBL into a positive accomplishment for the Bush administration.

If you want to realize the extent of this administration's incompetence, all you have to do is take a look at Clinton's old State of the Unions. They take you back to a world of peace and prosperity, which was unlike the world of war and recession we have now.

Clinton's 1998 SOTU
We have more than 14 million new jobs, the lowest unemployment in 24 years, the lowest core inflation in 30 years.

Incomes are rising, and we have the highest home ownership in history. Crime has dropped for a record five years in a row, and the welfare rolls are at their lowest levels in 27 years.

Our leadership in the world is unrivaled. Ladies and gentlemen, the state of our union is strong.

Clinton's 1999 SOTU
Tonight I stand before you to report that America has created the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history -- with nearly 18 million new jobs, wages rising at more than twice the rate of inflation, the highest homeownership in history, the smallest welfare rolls in 30 years -- and the lowest peacetime unemployment since 1957.

For the first time in three decades, the budget is balanced. From a deficit of $290 billion in 1992, we had a surplus of $70 billion last year AND NOW We are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 years.

Thanks to the pioneering leadership of all of you, we have the lowest violent crime rate in a quarter century and the cleanest environment in a quarter century.

America is a strong force for peace from Northern Ireland, to Bosnia, to the Middle East.

Clinton's 2000 SOTU
We begin the new century with over 20 million new jobs. The fastest economic growth in more than 30 years, the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years, the lowest poverty rates in 20 years, the lowest African-American and Hispanic unemployment rates on record, the first back-to-back budget surpluses in 42 years.


Next month, America will achieve the longest period of economic growth in our entire history. We have built a new economy. Our economic revolution has been matched by a revival of the American spirit: Crime down by 20 percent, to its lowest level in 25 years. Teen births down seven years in a row and adoptions up by 30 percent. Welfare rolls cut in half to their lowest levels in 30 years.


My fellow Americans, the state of our union is the strongest it has ever been.

My fellow Americans, I stand before you to report that the state of our union is strong.

So with our budget surplus growing, our economy expanding, our confidence rising, now is the moment for this generation to meet our historic responsibility to the 21st century.

Then, just two years later:

GWB's 2002 SOTU
our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term

Americans who have lost their jobs need our help and I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. (Applause.) Yet, American workers want more than unemployment checks -- they want a steady paycheck.

3 million Americans lost their jobs. Bush took the largest surplus in the history of the country, and turned it into the largest deficit. Most of it went to the rich, under the pretense that giving money to rich people will somehow help the economy. Bush was close friends with one of the biggest criminals in the history of the country, a man who defrauded people out of billions of dollars...Ken Lay. He allowed Lay to run his scam without any consequence whatsoever. That happened while he oversaw the biggest corporate meltdowns in history. This was happening while every single state in the country was scrambling for money, many of them almost bankrupt. There's much more I can say, but I don't have time.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Great post clk!

I wish I could post like that, but television has reduced my attention span to only allowing short blurbs and thoughts. Usually no more than a sentence or 2.

Charlie (Harrison Bergeron - boom, there goes an explosion in my ear) Monoxide

[BTox]

Wow, talk about spin. That post reads like a fantasy island episode.

Originally posted by clk


I find it amusing that you were able to spin Bush's inability (and sometimes unwillingness) to capture OBL into a positive accomplishment for the Bush administration.

And remind us of the willingness and success Clinton had capturing OBL?

Originally posted by clk
If you want to realize the extent of this administration's incompetence, all you have to do is take a look at Clinton's old State of the Unions. They take you back to a world of peace and prosperity, which was unlike the world of war and recession we have now.

When you have to resort to SOTU addresses to "make" your argument...

Peace and prosperity? I guess you forgot about Iraq, Kosovo, Al Quaeda attacks on the U.S. and elsewhere. And prosperity that burst in a bubble of dotcom and high tech smoke and mirrors in the second half of 2000.


Originally posted by clk

3 million Americans lost their jobs. Bush took the largest surplus in the history of the country, and turned it into the largest deficit.

Utter nonsense. The 2000/2001 recession and 9/11 took the surplus and cost jobs. Get a clue, please.

[BTox]

Originally posted by clk

If you want to realize the extent of this administration's incompetence, all you have to do is take a look at Clinton's old State of the Unions. They take you back to a world of peace and prosperity, which was unlike the world of war and recession we have now.


Also, let's not forget that during your so-called era of "peace and prosperity", Al Quaeda operatives had invaded this country and we're actively training to deliver the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history.

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox

And remind us of the willingness and success Clinton had capturing OBL?


Clinton wasn't the President during 9/11. I was trying to point out that it is ridiculous to state that Bush's failure to capture OBL is a positive accomplishment for the Bush administration. As for the unwillingess part, I was referring to the fact that Bush chose to go after Saddam and ignore OBL, even though Saddam was not a threat.



When you have to resort to SOTU addresses to "make" your argument...

The parts of the SOTU addresses that I posted dealt with facts. Do you dispute anything that Clinton stated in the SOTU? Do you deny that he created 20 million new jobs and had the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years?



Peace and prosperity? I guess you forgot about Iraq, Kosovo, Al Quaeda attacks on the U.S. and elsewhere.


How many countries did Clinton invade under false pretenses? Did he go into Kosovo unilaterally?




Utter nonsense. The 2000/2001 recession and 9/11 took the surplus and cost jobs. Get a clue, please.

You're telling me that 9/11 is the reason we're running a deficit, and not a trillion dollar tax cut, or an illegitimate war? The economy was bad, sure. But if you have that kind of a surplus, and the power of the Fed, you should be able to turn around the economy within 2 years by passing small business tax cuts.

Also, you didn't address my other points:
Bush was close friends with one of the biggest criminals in the history of the country, a man who defrauded people out of billions of dollars...Ken Lay. He allowed Lay to run his scam without any consequence whatsoever. This was happening while every single state in the country was scrambling for money, many of them almost bankrupt.

If you want, you can blame it all on Clinton. That's what alot of conservatives on this board have done...Clinton is responsible for the recession, Clinton is responsible for 9/11, etc. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

[BTox]

Originally posted by clk


Clinton wasn't the President during 9/11. I was trying to point out that it is ridiculous to state that Bush's failure to capture OBL is a positive accomplishment for the Bush administration. As for the unwillingess part, I was referring to the fact that Bush chose to go after Saddam and ignore OBL, even though Saddam was not a threat.

The "fact" that Bush chose to go after Saddam and ignore OBL? Do you not know that 10,000 troops are still in Afgan searching for him? Saddam "not a threat" is your opinion, not a fact, either.


Originally posted by clk

How many countries did Clinton invade under false pretenses? Did he go into Kosovo unilaterally?

You said "peace".




Originally posted by clk

You're telling me that 9/11 is the reason we're running a deficit, and not a trillion dollar tax cut, or an illegitimate war? The economy was bad, sure. But if you have that kind of a surplus, and the power of the Fed, you should be able to turn around the economy within 2 years by passing small business tax cuts.

Gee, it's 2 years after the recession and the economy is turning around nicely.


Originally posted by clk

If you want, you can blame it all on Clinton. That's what alot of conservatives on this board have done...Clinton is responsible for the recession, Clinton is responsible for 9/11, etc. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

Who's blaming only Clinton? Recessions have little to do with what Presidents enact. But the fact is, the downturn started during his watch. It is you that is blaming only Bush. Same for 9/11 - Clinton lamely tried and failed to get OBL, not that it would've prevented 9/11, but the cells were here and training during his watch - so again, you're blaming only Bush is nonsense.

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox


Saddam "not a threat" is your opinion, not a fact, either.


How exactly was he a threat? He had no real army, navy, or air force. He had no WMDs. How could he have attacked the US? He may have been crazy but he wasn't stupid. He knew that if he attacked the US, it would be the end of him. Did you see that interview he had with Dan Rather? Saddam was scared out of his mind...he knew the power of the US, and he knew not to mess with us.


You said "peace".


The 8 years that Clinton was in office were relatively peaceful. America has always been involved in disputes all over the world, and you can probably find examples for each President. Before Clinton, there was the Iran-hostage situation, the Cold War, etc. I don't know if there has been a single President in recent history that has had an administration that could be considered truely "peaceful".


Gee, it's 2 years after the recession and the economy is turning around nicely.


If I'm not mistaken, the downturn started in late 2000, early 2001. It's been 3 years, and I don't know if it's safe to say the economy is turning around nicely. There were only 1000 jobs gained last month.



Recessions have little to do with what Presidents enact. But the fact is, the downturn started during his watch. It is you that is blaming only Bush. Same for 9/11 - Clinton lamely tried and failed to get OBL, not that it would've prevented 9/11, but the cells were here and training during his watch - so again, you're blaming only Bush is nonsense.

Clinton should have done more to get OBL. That was a big mistake of his. Also, the recession did start under Clinton's watch, but here's the thing...it was caused by the huge tech bubble bursting. Nobody saw it coming. I personally thought we were entering a new economy based on technology as far as the eye can see. But I was naive. What could Clinton have done to prevent it? Raise interest rates? Everyone would have been screaming for his head if he had tried to halt the expansion, including me. I don't blame Bush for starting the recession, but I blame him for not doing more to stop it. I think if he had used the money he spent on tax cuts in the proper way, then we would have gotten out of the recession within 2 years. Also, he set an incredibly bad precedent by allowing Ken Lay to defraud people out of billions of dollars without punishment. Why? Because Ken Lay was good friends with Bush and Enron donated more to Bush's campaign than anyone else. That just smacks of corruption.

[BTox]

Originally posted by clk


How exactly was he a threat?

Didn't you read any of Kay's recent testimony on this issue?

Originally posted by clk
I don't know if there has been a single President in recent history that has had an administration that could be considered truely "peaceful".

Yes, that is correct.

Originally posted by clk

If I'm not mistaken, the downturn started in late 2000, early 2001. It's been 3 years, and I don't know if it's safe to say the economy is turning around nicely. There were only 1000 jobs gained last month.

The recession ended nov 2001. That's a little over 2 years the way I do math. Job growth is still slow, but expected to pick up this spring. GDP growth is very strong, manufacturing growth (just came out yesterday) strongest in 20 years.

[demon]

"The "fact" that Bush chose to go after Saddam and ignore OBL? Do you not know that 10,000 troops are still in Afgan searching for him?"

Oh, he`s still there? Someone ought to tell the president:p

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox


Didn't you read any of Kay's recent testimony on this issue?


Well, I really don't see it being anymore clear cut than it is. Again, Saddam had no army, airforce, or navy. Maybe Bush thought he had WMDs. So why not let the inspectors check out the entire country? If Saddam refuses to let them inspect any single site, than we can discuss going to war. Even if Saddam had WMDs, I don't think he was dumb enough to use it against the US. Even the CIA said that he was more likely to use them against us if we invaded his country, rather than him somehow launching a pre-emptive strike on us (he didn't even have the means for pre-emption).


Yes, that is correct.


Again, Clinton's term was relatively peaceful.



The recession ended nov 2001. That's a little over 2 years the way I do math. Job growth is still slow, but expected to pick up this spring. GDP growth is very strong, manufacturing growth (just came out yesterday) strongest in 20 years.

Well, I don't know the technical definition of recession, but I know people were still losing their jobs well into 2002 and 2003. Also, you claimed that 9/11 caused the loss of jobs and deficit. If that's the case, then how did the recession manage to end just two months after 9/11?

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox

And remind us of the willingness and success Clinton had capturing OBL?



When Clinton tried to kill OBL by bombing him, the Republicans criticized him by claiming that he was only bombing OBL to draw attention away from the Lewinsky affair. So let me get this straight...if Clinton doesn't do anything, then he is guilty of not doing everything he can to kill OBL. But if he does try something, then he is simply wagging the dog, right? There wasn't anything he could have done that would not have resulted in him being burned at the stake.

[Zero]

Originally posted by clk


When Clinton tried to kill OBL by bombing him, the Republicans criticized him by claiming that he was only bombing OBL to draw attention away from the Lewinsky affair. So let me get this straight...if Clinton doesn't do anything, then he is guilty of not doing everything he can to kill OBL. But if he does try something, then he is simply wagging the dog, right? There wasn't anything he could have done that would not have resulted in him being burned at the stake. Didn't I read that under Clinton, we missed killing OBL by 20 minutes, and Clinton was blasted for that? Odd, since that is possibly closer than we ever got to him under Bush.

[Otther]

Did he go into Kosovo unilaterally? Bush attacked Iraq with a group of countries whose verbal support had to be bought. Clinton attacked Kosovo with an alliance whose charter declared its purpose as purely defensive. And both attacks were done without the UN's permission. Both operations lacked the proper support, clk.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Otther
Bush attacked Iraq with a group of countries whose verbal support had to be bought. Clinton attacked Kosovo with an alliance whose charter declared its purpose as purely defensive. And both attacks were done without the UN's permission. Both operations lacked the proper support, clk. Does bringing up Kosovo count as an admission that the Republicans knew this was illegal, and just didn't care?

[Otther]

Does bringing up Kosovo count as an admission that the Republicans knew this was illegal, and just didn't care? That wasn't really what I was trying to get across, but I do believe it to be true (with the caveot that Democrats don't care either when it doesn't suit them).

Many conservatives supported the war in Iraq purely from the standpoint that it removed a murderous dictator. If one is approaching the war with this viewpoint, International law is damn near irrelevant. Just as it was when Clinton went after Milosevic.

[Dancing David]

When spin meets anti-spin they cancel.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Doesn't it have to be a secret to be a conspiracy?
;)

At least we are free to debate ourselves into whatever foolish position we choose and that says a lot!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Otther
That wasn't really what I was trying to get across, but I do believe it to be true (with the caveot that Democrats don't care either when it doesn't suit them).

Many conservatives supported the war in Iraq purely from the standpoint that it removed a murderous dictator. If one is approaching the war with this viewpoint, International law is damn near irrelevant. Just as it was when Clinton went after Milosevic. Ok, thanks for the honesty!:D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Am I the only one here who is looking at the Domestic Policy and seeing huge budget deffecit problems.

How the f*** does lowering the income tax work, while installing newer social institutions.

It makes no sense unless you are going into deffecit spending, which will make the economy go into a bear market again.
Receipts due to Laffer curve may or may not outweigh revenues lost by rate decreases, but I'd say there is -zero- doubt that economies do better under lower taxrates.



Questions to you hammegk:

1. How safe do you feel knowing that Osama, mastermind of the 9/11 plot, is still out there?
Much safer than I would feel if he still had obvious country-level overt backers.


2. Weren't the reason for going to war in Iraq illegitimate in the firstplace, I mean come on, no WMD's?
I'm very pleased Saddam no longer enjoys a few billion a year in oil revenues, and that he is no longer any threat in any way.


3. Do you feel safer that under a Democratically elected government in Afghanistan, the Opium industry there will boom, thus amking more illegal drugs readily avaliable?
Damn if I know what to do with the War on Drugs. Ask the 19th century Chinese what they thought about the Brits supplying opium on demand. From my view on drugs, give 'em away to all requesters; death stops the addiction process, and on crack 18 months should do it. At least addicts wouldn't have to worry about geting shot as they steal something to support the habit.

4. How does Libya ending it's Nuclear Weapons program help us any? He** we have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over by now.
You may be silly enough to equate the US designs on the world as a terrorist organization as opposed to Libya-Gaddafi & terrorism. Is he crazy enough to nuke somebody? Probably not. The proliferation is the problem imo.

If the US decides to go thermo-nuke in any major way, we all put our heads between our legs & kiss our asses goodbye. Again imo.

5. Do you really think the peace will hold between Pakistan and India? It is extremely doubtful considering the intense nationalism on both sides.
No idea, and if the US doesn't get drawn into nuking things, nor do I particularly care.

Good way to stop US job outsourcing to the subcontinent, huh?;)


PS. Less than 20,000 is now over 22,000. A fair growth rate.