PA primary thread

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh, I am backing Conservative causes and issues. But if you really are a Libertarian then maybe you should rethink your support of the Liberal BHO.
But thanks for the laugh, if you think that there is a Democrat in the race who will reign in "out-of-control spending" then I think you've drank a bit too much BHO kool-aid.

That being said - I've stated many times here that I haven't decided if I'm going to back McCain this year due to my unhappiness and I know plenty of Conservatives who are in the same boat as I am.

Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

We are talking about the same Obama who wants at least $400 billion in additional spending?

Bush has sucked as far as size of government goes, but you have got to be crazy to think the Democrats are going to do a better job and keeping the government small. I don't even see them trying to act like they want a small government. Anyone who votes Democrat solely because they are unhappy with the growth of the government under is an idiot.

PJ, quit apologizing. It's pathetic. And if you'd actually read the rest of the thread before posting, you'd see that the idiot is you. You only get so many Presidents who "sucked as far as size of government goes" before your partisan BS stinks too ripe and your party's President privilege gets revoked (and in this case, we're talking about every Republican President since Nixon).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

Sure, if you cherry-pick only those 2 rare instances, and ignore the rest of the chart. I could do the same thing and point out that the only 2 times the debt went down was under Carter and Clinton, but I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

How about you look at whole thing, eh? And then compare that with your "accelerate the trend" statement bolded above.

Bon appetit!

But you are...

He asked for a point in which a Democrat spent less than a Republican and you pointed to a chart that shows no such thing and then you claim that it prove whatever point you are trying to make?


What I find really interesting is that in 2007 spending only grew by .6% which is a lower rate of growth than any year under Clinton.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

I look at the chart with adjusted spending levels. The only negative numbers in the WHOLE CHART for spending were 1987 and 1993. Obviously 1987 was Reagan. While Clinton was in office in 1993, the fiscal year ended in 1993 was Bush 41.

Unless I am missing something, I wont be ruining my dinner just yet.

Sure, if you cherry-pick only those 2 rare instances, and ignore the rest of the chart. I could do the same thing and point out that the only 2 times the debt went down was under Carter and Clinton, but I'm not that intellectually dishonest.

How about you look at whole thing, eh? And then compare that with your "accelerate the trend" statement bolded above.

Bon appetit!

But you are...

He asked for a point in which a Democrat spent less than a Republican and you pointed to a chart that shows no such thing and then you claim that it prove whatever point you are trying to make?


What I find really interesting is that in 2007 spending only grew by .6% which is a lower rate of growth than any year under Clinton.

It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic
It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

You gotta admit that it is an interesting point.

Who would have thought that Bush's best year would be better than Clinton's best year.
Of course the rest of Bush's terms suck, but it is still an interesting fact.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

You gotta admit that it is an interesting point.

Who would have thought that Bush's best year would be better than Clinton's best year.
Of course the rest of Bush's terms suck, but it is still an interesting fact.

I don't find it interesting at all. But I am not surprised it looks so interesting to a Bush apologist.

And weren't you supporting Obama not too long ago?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

You gotta admit that it is an interesting point.

Who would have thought that Bush's best year would be better than Clinton's best year.
Of course the rest of Bush's terms suck, but it is still an interesting fact.

You mean that it was the first fiscal year that the new Dem-majority congress got a chance to weigh in on the budget? As opposed to the previous years' rubber-stamping? You should see Bush's $3.1 trillion budget proposal for FY09. Let's hope the Dems do something about it because history has already proven that the Pubs won't.

And kindly don't lecture me about intellectual honesty when you pick one year out of 30, and I went to the bother to average out all of them. The numbers don't lie, and the simple plain truth is that the Republicans are the big government party. You can't just pin it on GW when it goes back to Nixon.

Not accounting at all for revenues or debt levels, since FY78, spending has accelerated at an average annual rate of 2.81% under Republican presidents vs. an average annual 2.38% rate under Democratic presidents.
And before you point to Reagan's burden of a Democratic congress, the worst offender of all by far was GW Bush with a Republican congress with a 4.34% rate from 02-06.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

You gotta admit that it is an interesting point.

Who would have thought that Bush's best year would be better than Clinton's best year.
Of course the rest of Bush's terms suck, but it is still an interesting fact.

I don't find it interesting at all. But I am not surprised it looks so interesting to a Bush apologist.

And weren't you supporting Obama not too long ago?

Obama?? :laugh:

I'll sit at home before I vote for a uber liberal.

McCain might not be a great conservative, but he'll be better than Obama.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
It really ain't just a river in Egypt, is it?

You gotta admit that it is an interesting point.

Who would have thought that Bush's best year would be better than Clinton's best year.
Of course the rest of Bush's terms suck, but it is still an interesting fact.

You mean that it was the first fiscal year that the new Dem-majority congress got a chance to weigh in on the budget? As opposed to the previous years' rubber-stamping? You should see Bush's $3.1 trillion budget proposal for FY09. Let's hope the Dems do something about it because history has already proven that the Pubs won't.

And kindly don't lecture me about intellectual honesty when you pick one year out of 30, and I went to the bother to average out all of them. The numbers don't lie, and the simple plain truth is that the Republicans are the big government party. You can't just pin it on GW when it goes back to Nixon.

Not accounting at all for revenues or debt levels, since FY78, spending has accelerated at an average annual rate of 2.81% under Republican presidents vs. an average annual 2.38% rate under Democratic presidents.
And before you point to Reagan's burden of a Democratic congress, the worst offender of all by far was GW Bush with a Republican congress with a 4.34% rate from 02-06.

And that doesn't include the future entitlements added with the medicare prescription drug bill Bush signed, which David Walker called the most fiscally irresponsible bill since the 1960's.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic
You mean that it was the first fiscal year that the new Dem-majority congress got a chance to weigh in on the budget? As opposed to the previous years' rubber-stamping? You should see Bush's $3.1 trillion budget proposal for FY09. Let's hope the Dems do something about it because history has already proven that the Pubs won't.

BUZZZ!!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!

Democrats were elected in November of 2006 and took office in Jan of 2007. The FY 2007 budget was passed in the fall of 2006, BEFORE the midterm election had even taken place.

I am rather surprised you didn't know this. There is a two year lag between an election year and the first fiscal budget those voted in can actually vote for.

Clinton's first budget was the FY 1994 budget for example. Although his 1993 tax increase would have affected revenue for FY 1993.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Obama?? :laugh:

I'll sit at home before I vote for a uber liberal.

McCain might not be a great conservative, but he'll be better than Obama.

Yeah, right. It's too bad that -- IN REALITY -- it's the Republican party that are the uber lib-er-als spending our tax dollars like drunken sailors.


The numbers don't lie. Since FY1978, Republican administrations have increased spending at a rate 22% greater than the Democratic counterparts, increased the federal debt at a rate 767% greater, and presided over GDP growth that was 18% slower.

We all want to know... how many more "not great conservatives," like McCain and Bush, are you going to vote for?

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok... we all agree that Bush sucks when it comes to growth in spending.

What we can't agree on is who will do a better job in the future. Right?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre
And that doesn't include the future entitlements added with the medicare prescription drug bill Bush signed, which David Walker called the most fiscally irresponsible bill since the 1960's.

Let's not even discuss Bush's precious MMA 2003. We basically have UHC now... the Republican kind. Which means only corporations and old people get anything out of it, the rest of us get shafted, but it still costs twice as much as the worst "socialist" program that PJ and Rush Limbaugh get nightmares about.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok... we all agree that Bush sucks when it comes to growth in spending.

What we can't agree on is who will do a better job in the future. Right?

IF there was a single issue position on McCain's platform that was different than Bush's, you might have a point.

IF GHW Bush had cut spending or if Reagan had cut spending or if Nixon had cut spending (after LBJ!), you might have a point.

But you don't. The time has come for the Republican party to quit pretending that they uphold to conservative values, when any idiot can tell that they don't. Much less libertarian values. Neither party is libertarian, but the Dems are starting to look like free market whores compared to the Pubs. I know you don't want to accept it, but it's gotten that bad.


edit: Oh, and quick! say lib-er-al again, and prove you still don't know the meaning of the word.

 

[bamacre]

IMO, the most important goal of this election is sending a message to the Republican party that they need to revert back to the days of a more humble foreign policy, fiscal conservatism, and strong protections of the Bill of Rights.

Voting for McCain highly conflicts with that goal. Because in doing so, as people on the right, we are telling the Republicans that we will except with open arms, these drastic changes from the party. Fiscal irresponsibility, nation-building, bigger government, and a total disregard for the rights and liberties of the American people.

The Republican party deserves to be dragged through the mud. And then it needs a deep cleansing.

Until then, I'll vote for the Libertarian candidate. The Republicans don't deserve my vote, and won't get it.

 

[Vic]

Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

Yup. The number of people who refer to themselves as Republicans has dropped, dramatically, under Bush's reign. Paul probably increased that number a wee little bit.

I'm hoping Paul will tell his fans to vote Libertarian. I will nevertheless. It would be wonderful if the final GE results look something like this...

McCain 40%
Obama 50%
LP Candidate 10%

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

That's a meaningless figure.

I proved that in another thread. Democrats always have higher turnout in the primaries and in the years they had the biggest turn out lead they actually lost the general election.

This is because high turnout in a primary is a sign of a divided party while low turnout is a sign of a united party. This is also due to the fact that the Republicans tend to rally around the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning and thus ending their primary battles sooner than the Democrats who vote for very different reasons.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

That's a meaningless figure.

I proved that in another thread. Democrats always have higher turnout in the primaries and in the years they had the biggest turn out lead they actually lost the general election.

This is because high turnout in a primary is a sign of a divided party while low turnout is a sign of a united party. This is also due to the fact that the Republicans tend to rally around the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning and thus ending their primary battles sooner than the Democrats who vote for very different reasons.

Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

 

[Coldkilla]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

That's a meaningless figure.

I proved that in another thread. Democrats always have higher turnout in the primaries and in the years they had the biggest turn out lead they actually lost the general election.

This is because high turnout in a primary is a sign of a divided party while low turnout is a sign of a united party. This is also due to the fact that the Republicans tend to rally around the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning and thus ending their primary battles sooner than the Democrats who vote for very different reasons.

Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

A good many may switch back true, but Democrats (lets say for example) pull 10 new people onto the Democratic Party. Even if 6 of them return to being a democrat (I'm not entirely sure the mindset people have switching a party and switching again considering the reason they switched in the first place probably deals with Iraq in some fashion, or any issue however), but thats still 4 additional people that have switched over to the Democrats. Which really helps the dems the longer this primary season goes on, it doesn't help the Republicans, it hurts them.

Plus the reason for these high turnout is largely because of new voters. Newer voters are not siding with McCain or Hillary (for the most part), they are siding with Obama. So the uptick in turnout is largely contributed (I think) in part because Obama is the beacon of hope in many peoples eyes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Coldkilla

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic
Hey, Ron Paul got 16% in PA last night. Very nice.

But the big figure for me was that Republican turnout was scarcely 25% of the Dem turnout, a trend that's been holding more or less in every primary so far.

That's a meaningless figure.

I proved that in another thread. Democrats always have higher turnout in the primaries and in the years they had the biggest turn out lead they actually lost the general election.

This is because high turnout in a primary is a sign of a divided party while low turnout is a sign of a united party. This is also due to the fact that the Republicans tend to rally around the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning and thus ending their primary battles sooner than the Democrats who vote for very different reasons.

Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

A good many may switch back true, but Democrats (lets say for example) pull 10 new people onto the Democratic Party. Even if 6 of them return to being a democrat (I'm not entirely sure the mindset people have switching a party and switching again considering the reason they switched in the first place probably deals with Iraq in some fashion, or any issue however), but thats still 4 additional people that have switched over to the Democrats. Which really helps the dems the longer this primary season goes on, it doesn't help the Republicans, it hurts them.

Plus the reason for these high turnout is largely because of new voters. Newer voters are not siding with McCain or Hillary (for the most part), they are siding with Obama. So the uptick in turnout is largely contributed (I think) in part because Obama is the beacon of hope in many peoples eyes.

Sure, I might agree with NEW voters but I think the switchers are due to the much maligned "operation chaos" or Rs trying to pick the D's nominee for them. They will likely switch back and IMO the switchers will probably be larger than the 60% you throw out. Even if people disagree with the war doesn't mean they will switch parties long term. But yes, the new one's likely flocked to the Obamara cult like movement.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

Maybe they are a good many switching to vote in the primary and maybe they're a good many who are fed up with the (R) party and damned near everything about it? I'm one of those (R)'s who switched to (D) and I'm not switching back.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

Maybe they are a good many switching to vote in the primary and maybe they're a good many who are fed up with the (R) party and damned near everything about it? I'm one of those (R)'s who switched to (D) and I'm not switching back.

That's fine. As far as I and a lot of other Conservatives are concerned, the RINO's can leave. Unfortunately they didn't leave soon enough and stuck us with McCain.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

Maybe they are a good many switching to vote in the primary and maybe they're a good many who are fed up with the (R) party and damned near everything about it? I'm one of those (R)'s who switched to (D) and I'm not switching back.

That's fine. As far as I and a lot of other Conservatives are concerned, the RINO's can leave. Unfortunately they didn't leave soon enough and stuck us with McCain.

Yeah, you may think its fine, until the Republicans start losing elections.

Its the neo-cons the party needs to get rid of.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

Maybe they are a good many switching to vote in the primary and maybe they're a good many who are fed up with the (R) party and damned near everything about it? I'm one of those (R)'s who switched to (D) and I'm not switching back.

That's fine. As far as I and a lot of other Conservatives are concerned, the RINO's can leave. Unfortunately they didn't leave soon enough and stuck us with McCain.

Yeah, you may think its fine, until the Republicans start losing elections.

Its the neo-cons the party needs to get rid of.

Well, yes, those too. And if losing a few election is what it takes for the R party to return to Conservative principles - so be it.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Not to mention that the R side has it's nominee so it's only logical that the R voters didn't take time to go. Plus there seems to be a movement of Rs that are switching to D to vote in their primary and will likely switch back(a good many of them).

Maybe they are a good many switching to vote in the primary and maybe they're a good many who are fed up with the (R) party and damned near everything about it? I'm one of those (R)'s who switched to (D) and I'm not switching back.

That's fine. As far as I and a lot of other Conservatives are concerned, the RINO's can leave. Unfortunately they didn't leave soon enough and stuck us with McCain.

You're right in that I have been RINO considering I haven't voted for a (R) since Bush1 and I'm proud to be a RINO that didn't vote for that POS POTUS Bush2 either time. As far as McCain, you have only your party to blame.