THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

[unriggable]

As long as you people over there don't elect an outright idiot like the last two times I don't mind.

Last 4 times

Last two times. We had a surplus. (had)

And a Republican Congress/Senate.

Not before '96, when it was highest.

[jay_a2j]

Well, according to this graph, the surplus occurred in the late 90's to early 2000's.

[unriggable]

Outlays? Receipts? What the hell is that?

But you're right, under a republican congress we did well (same rate as under democratic congress). As soon as you guys enter the white house, everything changes.

[jay_a2j]

Now what happened in 2002 that might have effected the surplus? Ooooh that's right....the Afghan/Iraq wars. That's why we NEED Ron Paul!

[unriggable]

Ron Paul isn't the only candidate to oppose Iraq / Afghan. In fact, every democrat opposes it.

[jay_a2j]

Ron Paul isn't the only candidate to oppose Iraq / Afghan. In fact, every democrat opposes it.

Yeah, but Ron Paul is the only Constitutionalist! The only one with a plan to reduce spending while still funding social programs. The only candidate with a CONSISTENT voting record! Without a doubt, the candidate with the highest integrity.

[MeDeFe]

I've heard that "consistent voting record" can be synonymous to "the bloody wanker won't change his mind no matter what".


Of course there might be exceptions.

[joecoolfrog]

Jay you still havent explained why Bush is not a Conservative

[jay_a2j]

Jay you still havent explained why Bush is not a Conservative

Yeah, I did. He spends money like a liberal. He went his first 4 years without vetoing 1 thing. Congress asks for money for something, anything...and he ok's it. Why not? Its not his money...its ours. A Billion dollars a day to fund the war?

[vtmarik]

Jay you still havent explained why Bush is not a Conservative

Because he spends a lot.

[Guiscard]

A Billion dollars a day to fund the war?

Thats a bit of a change of heart from the Jay who said:

When fanatical nut jobs who believe they will be with 72 virgins, fly our planes into our buildings...screw the UN. Screw the liberal terrorist sympathizers. Screw getting a coalition of the willing. Take all that you have and make them regret their actions!

I notice you've changed your tune in regards to the Iraq war... it's just a shame that it's taken a deluded lunatic like xtra to convince you... how completely ironic.

[jay_a2j]

I notice you've changed your tune in regards to the Iraq war... it's just a shame that it's taken a deluded lunatic like xtra to convince you... how completely ironic.

It wasn't xtra. It was Ron Paul. Credit where credit is due.

[Guiscard]

It wasn't xtra. It was Ron Paul. Credit where credit is due.

So would you now retract the numerous accusations of cowardice leveled at those who didn't think the Iraq war was a justified one?

[Snorri1234]

I notice you've changed your tune in regards to the Iraq war... it's just a shame that it's taken a deluded lunatic like xtra to convince you... how completely ironic.

It wasn't xtra. It was Ron Paul. Credit where credit is due.

So only when a conservative says the war is bad do you start thinking the war is bad? Good to know you listen to everybody.



(I mean, obviously when the democrats said the war was bad they said it to spread their anti-america, communist propaganda.)

[Guiscard]

It wasn't xtra. It was Ron Paul. Credit where credit is due.

So only when a conservative says the war is bad do you start thinking the war is bad? Good to know you listen to everybody.


(I mean, obviously when the democrats said the war was bad they said it to spread their anti-america, communist propaganda.)

QF absolute fucking T

[jay_a2j]

It wasn't xtra. It was Ron Paul. Credit where credit is due.

So would you now retract the numerous accusations of cowardice leveled at those who didn't think the Iraq war was a justified one?

I can try.

So only when a conservative says the war is bad do you start thinking the war is bad? Good to know you listen to everybody.


(I mean, obviously when the democrats said the war was bad they said it to spread their anti-america, communist propaganda.)

Actually....initially I was against the war. Then Bush propaganda got me on board with him. Ron Paul, unlike the liberals has a consistent record of voting WITH the Constitution. So yes, Ron has more credibility then the far left.

[unriggable]

I've heard that "consistent voting record" can be synonymous to "the bloody wanker won't change his mind no matter what".

AKA arrogant.

Jay you still havent explained why Bush is not a Conservative

Yeah, I did. He spends money like a liberal. He went his first 4 years without vetoing 1 thing. Congress asks for money for something, anything...and he ok's it. Why not? Its not his money...its ours. A Billion dollars a day to fund the war?

It's not spending that dictates whether you are conservative or liberal, it's what your stance is on issues like abortion, or gay marriage, or legalizing pot, or if we are justified in going to war (conservatives generally oppose these).

[Guiscard]

Actually....initially I was against the war. Then Bush propaganda got me on board with him.

And now Ron Paul propoganda has got you on board with him. What makes you think that in a year or two someone else with different propaganda isn't going to come along and convince you differently?

You seem very easily swayed, Jay...

[jay_a2j]

I've heard that "consistent voting record" can be synonymous to "the bloody wanker won't change his mind no matter what".

AKA arrogant.

Jay you still havent explained why Bush is not a Conservative

Yeah, I did. He spends money like a liberal. He went his first 4 years without vetoing 1 thing. Congress asks for money for something, anything...and he ok's it. Why not? Its not his money...its ours. A Billion dollars a day to fund the war?

It's not spending that dictates whether you are conservative or liberal, it's what your stance is on issues like abortion, or gay marriage, or legalizing pot, or if we are justified in going to war (conservatives generally oppose these).

Wrong. There are SOCIAL Liberal and FISCAL liberals. Social liberals are for abortion, weed, gay marriage and the like.

[The1exile]

So you're saying what makes a liberal is if they spend liberal amounts of money?

[Guiscard]

It's not spending that dictates whether you are conservative or liberal, it's what your stance is on issues like abortion, or gay marriage, or legalizing pot, or if we are justified in going to war (conservatives generally oppose these).

Spending is a fairly big indicator, unriggable. The 'big' issues you mention define conservativism specifically in the USA. Elsewhere they aren't anything like the polemic definitive issues they are for you. Over here spending/taxation is a major factor, the other being government interference in your everyday life. On a very general scale, Conservatives advocate lower taxes, less government spending and less interference whereas Liberals advocate higher taxation used to fund government interference for the good of society. The issues you mention are fluid whereas the values I'm talking about are fairly rigid.

[jay_a2j]

Actually....initially I was against the war. Then Bush propaganda got me on board with him.

And now Ron Paul propoganda has got you on board with him. What makes you think that in a year or two someone else with different propaganda isn't going to come along and convince you differently?

You seem very easily swayed, Jay...

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

[vtmarik]

Actually....initially I was against the war. Then Bush propaganda got me on board with him.

And now Ron Paul propoganda has got you on board with him. What makes you think that in a year or two someone else with different propaganda isn't going to come along and convince you differently?

You seem very easily swayed, Jay...

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

Yeah, but the whole constant here is that your convictions are twisted by politician's rhetoric.

If you had stuck with your "gut instinct" to begin with, then you wouldn't look like what Bush and his cronies call a "flip-flopper."

[Snorri1234]

It's not spending that dictates whether you are conservative or liberal, it's what your stance is on issues like abortion, or gay marriage, or legalizing pot, or if we are justified in going to war (conservatives generally oppose these).

Spending is a fairly big indicator, unriggable. The 'big' issues you mention define conservativism specifically in the USA. Elsewhere they aren't anything like the polemic definitive issues they are for you. Over here spending/taxation is a major factor, the other being government interference in your everyday life. On a very general scale, Conservatives advocate lower taxes, less government spending and less interference whereas Liberals advocate higher taxation used to fund government interference for the good of society. The issues you mention are fluid whereas the values I'm talking about are fairly rigid.

Yeah, but we're talking about conservatism in the USA. You don't get to use your own terms if nobody agrees with them in your country. If you say someone is a conservative in the USA, you mean anything ranging from the people who believe the whole nation should be christian to the people who generally say the government should be smaller.
Jay cannot say anything about Bush not being a conservative, because the term is so loose you can fit so many people in it.

[Guiscard]

Hardly. I didn't think it was right to invade Iraq. Then after the constant "Saddam will give WMD's to terrorists to bring to the US and use here" I said, "well that's no good", and hopped on board the "Invade Iraq bus". Ron Paul saying that it was AGAINST the Constitution made me re-think my stance. I guess to some "waking up" is a bad thing. Why would I listen to Ron Paul? Because, unlike many in politics, he is consistently FOR the Constitution! And it turns out my initial "gut instinct" towards the war was correct. Sue me.

And you though Bush was right because he was FOR promoting a strong America and teaching those terrorists in Iraq a lesson. Come on. Don't give me this 'waking up' shit, you've just jumped ship. I've argued many many many times about the WMDs thing. It was an obvious case. You only believe the WMDs exist if you support the Bush view, and even that isn't exactly tenable when we take into account the various government reports and comissions which find no evidence. Same with the causes for war. Countless countless times those who think the invasion was unjustified have rolled out the arguments.

I just quickly googled 'Ron Paul + Iraq'. I got this speech http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html.

In it, Ron Paul makes the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS as we have been making all along. Almost to the letter. The exact reasons and arguments we've trotted out every time in response to the Bush propaganda you so readily accepted. He could just as easily be a militant liberal if we just take the issue of Iraq into account rather than his other political opinions.

So yes, the above poster was dead on the mark. You jump ship to the anti-war camp because your new savior tells you to, not because he's come up with some miraculous new evidence.

Maybe I'm ignoring the constitutional argument. So I tried 'Ron Paul + Iraq + Constitution' and I got: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html

I know for a fact that I have, in an argument with you previously, made the point that the US has not formally declared war on anyone since WWII and that this was unconstitutional. Sorry... let me just make that point again. I myself have previously made exactly the same arguments that Ron Paul is making, almost down to the letter. This, more than anything, has convinced me that you are entirely dead to the world. You won't listen to anything other than the ramblings of whichever right-wing polemicist you support at the time.

Pull the other one.