Re: Guess Who?


"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bwOIg.30$JQ2.20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WtHIg.279$cR.138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hpsIg.3772$gN7.2265@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(Snip)

I was a card carrying dues paying member of the Republican Party at
the time I supported Barry Goldwater. I don't know that Goldwater
would have called himself a libertarian anything, but he was in
favor of women's rights and he was pro-choice when it came to
abortion rights. He was also a fiscal conservative and by that I
mean that he was reluctant to spend money that our tax revenues did
not generate. You may be too young to remember, but the Republican
Party always used to have as one of its major planks in its
platform a commitment not to spend money that our taxes didn't
generate. Goldwater also voted against LBJ's Civil Rights Act, which
provided
protection for minorities and later told his granddaughter that he
considered that vote to be a wart (a blemish) on his voting record.

Nowadays, a Bill Clinton cuts spending enough to generate a
surplus, and a George W. Bush makes America's bankers rich beyond
their wildest dreams with his prolifigate spending of money we
don't have and must therefore borrow from them. That borrowed
money, incidentally, will eventually have to be paid back by your
grandchildren, who won't have the foggiest notion of what it bought
or why granddaddy didn't pay for it himself when he needed whatever
it was that it bought. So the tables have turned. Now Democrats
are fiscal conservatives
and Republicans spend money like drunken sailors on a binge. I'm
not sure that wouldn't have been enough to tempt Goldwater to
change his party if it happened in his lifetime.

Perhaps you should spend a little time and look up Goldwater's
Presidential campaign position. I think you might be suprised....

Why would I be surprised? I was there at the time and I remember
it. You would be surprised.....I wouldn't.


Because unless you are rather unique among us old timers, we forget
things. I certainly found it interesting to re-read Goldwaters
Presidential campaign positions, mch of which I had long since
forgotten about..
.....As for the "democrats" being fiscal conservatives, I would say
I would
consider Clinton a fiscal conservative only from the standpoint of
his wish to balance the budget, which only happened one year out of
the eight years he was in office, which I do not think would have
ever happened if demcorats were in full control of the Congress.
And, if you took the time to do some research, you would find that
the "surplus" lasted one full year, and was headed south in a hurry
the next year.....

Give me a break, Jerry....I may be old but I'm not stupid. Clinton's
surplus lasted only as long as it took for Bush to take office and
piss it all away. That was all on Bush, not Clinton.

Take a look at the facts. Clinton served eight years in office. In
only one year did we have a surplus. The facts are the surplus
disappeared in the year 2000, which Bush had nothing to do with.

You take a look at the facts.....he served in office until January 20,
2001 and announced the surplus for the next fiscal year in September 2000.
That was his last year in office and Bush did if fact piss it away as
quickly as he got his hands on it. This stuff is easy enough to check
through Google and I didn't make it up. You should have before telling me
that I had it wrong.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

.....But I do not think you can compare any of the leading
candidates for the democratic nomination for President, as being
anywhere close to a fiscal conservative....can you?.....

I don't even know who they are as we speak, much less what their
fiscal policies might be.

We are speaking of democrats, or are you being purposely evasive?

What's evasive about me being unable to compare the fiscal policies of any
of the leading candidates for the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President
when neither of us knows who they're going to be? Are you just being
deliberately argumentative?

.....Has any of the leading candidates for the Presidency or for
that matter is there
anything in the democratic party platform that would indicate that
they have as one of their top priorities, balancing the budget?

Again, I don't know who the leading candidates are going to be or
what the Party platform is going to be regarding fiscal matters. You're
a couple of years ahead of yourself regarding the next
Presidential election and I'm flattered that you think I have a
crystal ball and can foresee such stuff before it happens.

Well, if you do not know what their platform is going to be, then how
can you decide before the platform is adopted, who you are going to
support?

Can you show me where anything I said would give you the slightest
indication of who I'm going to support? Are you putting this stuff down
just for the sake of seeing that you've posted something even if it
doesn't make the slightest bit of sense? Get a grip, Jerry, and please
stop putting words in my mouth.

BTW, just as a matter of grammar, "Democratic Party" is a title (of
an organization) just as "President" is the title of an office and
as such the first letters should be capitalized. Please note that I
always refer to the Republican Party as such in stuff I post rather
than as the republican party. I do it because it's correct grammar.
You should too for the same reason unless, of course, you're
deliberately trying to demean the Democratic Party by slighting the
way you refer to it. I give you more credit than that.

Grammer was never my strong suit. I gave up in using the proper
grammer a very long time ago.

You ought to make the effort.....correct grammar is an indicator of
education and if you hope to be taken seriously, it's kind of hard to do
when you come across like an unschooled boob. Anyway, if it doesn't
exceed my capabilities, it ought not exceed yours, so do make the effort.
One step at a time is achievable, especiallly when someone points it out
to you....don't be inadvertently insulting, Jerry, use capital letters to
head up names.

Here is some actual data.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

http://www.econstats.com/treasury/deffy.csv

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts.pdf




.

Relevant Pages

  • Whitewash The racist history the Democratic Party wants you to forget.
    ... political success of the Republican Party and the conservative ... Party until its embrace of civil rights in the 1960s. ... Democrats in support of this accusation, ... Vice President, 1825-32 ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Guess Who?
    ... I don't know that Goldwater ... Party always used to have as one of its major planks in its ... We are speaking of democrats, or are you being purposely evasive? ... the leading candidates for the DEMOCRATIC nomination for President when neither ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Shrill Dems their own worst enemy
    ... I see all over the US, people lined up outside republicon party hq waiting ... My goodness, I have never seen so many panicky Democrats, both locally ... Then there were the silly Dems acting out during President Bush's State ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Rise of the Mommy Party
    ... The rise of the Mommy Party ... With Democrats seizing control of the House and Senate, ... Bush and the GOP than an embrace of Democrats? ... of her being elected President are greater today than they were a mere ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Rise of the Mommy Party
    ... The rise of the Mommy Party ... With Democrats seizing control of the House and Senate, ... Bush and the GOP than an embrace of Democrats? ... of her being elected President are greater today than they were a mere ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading