this guy is such a shit disturber. i love it.

As I said in the Palin vid a bit down: Pat Robertson is the worst kind of evil... the kind that thinks it is righteous.

While his rhetoric is par for the course stupidity - Mr. Doofus has a point (even if he only steps in it accidentally).

One of the GOP's many problems is that it tries too hard to appeal to 'values voters'. I would more accurately refer to them as 'Social Conservatives'. The problem is that SoCons are (typically) single issue voters who want government to ban things they don't like. I may agree with SoCons on some issues at a personal level, but their efforts to use government as a bludgeon for social enforcement are misguided and wrong.

Abortion is a good example. SoCons want abortions banned. On a personal level I am sympathetic to the SoCon perspective that abortions are wrong except in extreme cases. But I do not support any attempt to make them illegal because that is taking away vital human freedom. If your cause is truly just (as I believe it is when discouraging abortions) then you make your case at a personal, individual level with persuasion and logic. If the person chooses a different path then that's their business.

The GOP - in an effort to court these misguided SoCons - ends up abandoning the one position that would sweep the GOP into office in perpetuity... SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You can't claim to stand for limited government if you are always using government to control people. These days the GOP has abandoned the 'limited government' platform and tries too hard to be 'Democrat Lite' with massive spending and big government solutions. Uh Uh.

The GOP has lost its soul with that position. If the GOP would reclaim the mantle of small government, tax cuts, reduced spending, and fiscal responsibility then they'd dominate the Democrats handily and wouldn't need to chase after these SoCons special interest groups like they were playing Whack-A-Mole.

WP: Never in the history of this country has there been a "limited government" GOP. Never. Not once. They never "abandoned" the idea, because they never cared for it in the first place. In fact, they have not only believed in the opposite, but their policies have always been the exact opposite. In my lifetime, government grows like wildfire every time there's a GOP preznit. Defecits blow up, more and bigger government intrudes on our lives, and bits of the constitution are erased.

I do not understand where this fantasy GOP party you crave for, exists. It has never happened before, so where does this dream come from?

@ Winstonfield_Pennypacker

Is this what they call a libertarian position?

The problem is that SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, should you achieve it, puts you in a position where there is a lot to fix and no good reason not to fix it, which brings you back full circle.

Any sane person is for simplification of bureaucracy, but the reality (IMO) is that that can only come from a concerted effort to reach an acceptable, logical standard of social care. Not looking after those who are unable/unwilling to survive/conform does not put you in a better long term position.

A bit less oportunistic trillion dollar invasions and general corruption (read lobbyists) and we could afford to get most people on their feet (read entering adulthood educated and not traumatised) and fight the spiral.

So surely its about what government is up to as much as how big it is?

Never in the history of this country has there been a "limited government" GOP. Never. Not once. They never "abandoned" the idea, because they never cared for it in the first place.

Not entirely. Many times in the history of the GOP they have had strong small government advocates. And here's a shocker... So did the Democrat party. There was one time when it was the de facto position a politician had to assume. And in modern history, the GOP has been the party that at least courts limited government as an idea (even if they don't do much for it). If only 1 GOP member in 1,000 is a limited government fiscal conservative, then it has to be said that the Democrats only have 1 in 100,000. Yup - I'm aware the GOP hasn't had this as thier central platform for a while. I blame 4 to 6 generations of RINOs for that with only ONE all too brief interruption with Reagan.

Note that Reagan had to deal with an overwhelmingly stacked Congress and still managed to squeeze in a lot of fiscal conservatism despite not holding the purse. Note also that the GOP took the house in 1994 on a platform of limited government and fiscal conservatism - which in turn forced Clinton to stop a lot of his leftist agenda. It would be wonderful to think what Reagan could have done to slash government if he'd had the 1994 Congress. The GOP got voted out after they abandoned fiscal conservative principles. True story, dat.

The problem is that SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT, should you achieve it, puts you in a position where there is a lot to fix and no good reason not to fix it, which brings you back full circle.

Government's role is to be a place for people to appeal when real abuses take place. That kind of limited invovlement is very valuable. But when government regulation as we know it today is far too intrusive and limiting. Government should serve as an occasional watchdog to punish real abuses. It should NOT serve as a police force to FIND abuses, or a legal office to PREVENT abuses. Create a skeleton of simple, common sense laws. Set up some watchdog & whistleblower groups. Put all the remaining regulatory & monitoring power into state government hands. Then get the Feds the heck out of everyone's way and watch out for that big huge pile of falling money.

A bit less oportunistic trillion dollar invasions and general corruption (read lobbyists)

No - read GOVERNMENT. The corruption to worry about is at the government level, not the lobbyist level. Lobbyists can't buy what isn't for sale. The fact that politicians sell out is the problem. The fact that there are lobbyists there to pay them is ancillary to the corruption in the political class.

'Create a skeleton of simple, common sense laws. Set up some watchdog & whistleblower groups. Put all the remaining regulatory & monitoring power into state government hands.'

'Lobbyists can't buy what isn't for sale. The fact that politicians sell out is the problem.'


You are an idealist and I like you.
However in my experience at some point everyone has a price and can be exploited. The relentless energy produced by entreprenurial capitalism is awesome when pointed in the right direction but if you don't hold on tight it goes off like a rogue fire hose. Nb. the 'self-regulating banking system'.

Again, what you speak does not conform to reality. You can claim anything you want, but it's not true.

I don't know where you get info saying that Reagan practiced anything close to "fiscal conservatism", but you need to re-think your sources. He bloated government, started the "war on drugs" (major, MAJOR government expansion which has cost trillions) and... oh wait. Sorry, forgot who I was replying to

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart-2004.gif



>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Note that Reagan had to deal with an overwhelmingly stacked Congress and still managed to squeeze in a lot of fiscal conservatism despite not holding the purse. Note also that the GOP took the house in 1994 on a platform of limited government and fiscal conservatism - which in turn forced Clinton to stop a lot of his leftist agenda. It would be wonderful to think what Reagan could have done to slash government if he'd had the 1994 Congress. The GOP got voted out after they abandoned fiscal conservative principles. True story, dat.

"Limited government" is a great platform on which to run, but implementing it is much harder. People have this silly idea that deficits can be cut significantly without a reduction in benefits.

"Please, cut these out-of-control deficits, but don't you dare touch my programs."

WP: What programs do you think can be cut while maintaining popular support? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? Just those three accounted for something like 65% of the budget in 2008.

Voters, as a whole, are pretty dumb. They love tax cuts, love the idea of spending cuts, hate actual spending cuts, and then say "WTF DEFICITS?!?!" "Stop socializing health care, but keep your hands off my medicare!"

Running a campaign on the idea of limited government gets you elected. Trying to implement limited government gets you kicked out on your ass.

The US, like all liberal democracies (the UK, Australia, etc) have seen a steady rise in the proportional size of the public sector for the past 30 years, along with an increased tax burden. The conservative dream of a low taxing, small Government is indeed a myth in the modern era.

As Winston says, you can't buy what's not for sale - and Conservatives and Big Business have been selling the low tax small Government myth for years. Happily for them there's enough uncritical dupes still buying it.

BTW, I don't think voter intelligence is the cause of the problem. I think it's more that voters have such low expectation of government capacities to do anything well that they go for the "we won't do much, but we'll try to cut taxes" line a lot of the time. And sadly, they're often right.

obamarx escalated the war in Afghanistan, didn't get gay marriage in the military, didn't close gitmo, didn't get communist health care passed. He's also had both the deficit and unemployment soar under his flopsweat reign. So I guess not everyone on the left gets what they want from their elected officials, either, do they?

Union-shill Grayson is up for reelection this year. I'll be sure to send $$$ to whomever is running against him, even if it's the Great Pumpkin, who has a smaller head.


press release
Statement Regarding Pat Robertson's Comments on Haiti

CBN.com – VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 13, 2010 -- On today’s The 700 Club, during a segment about the devastation, suffering and humanitarian effort that is needed in Haiti, Dr. Robertson also spoke about Haiti’s history. His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed. Dr. Robertson never stated that the earthquake was God’s wrath. If you watch the entire video segment, Dr. Robertson’s compassion for the people of Haiti is clear. He called for prayer for them. His humanitarian arm has been working to help thousands of people in Haiti over the last year, and they are currently launching a major relief and recovery effort to help the victims of this disaster. They have sent a shipment of millions of dollars worth of medications that is now in Haiti, and their disaster team leaders are expected to arrive tomorrow and begin operations to ease the suffering.

Chris Roslan
Spokesman for CBN

However in my experience at some point everyone has a price and can be exploited.

Very true. And in the case of our elected officials, this price is startlingly low. It doesn't take much to 'corrupt' a politician. Everyone wants to make laws punishing the act of lobbying a politician. To me that is a position that is both ineffective (they'll always find ways around it) and unconstitutional (1st Ammendment guarantees the right to appeal). The solution to me is obvious. Instead of making laws that punish lobbying - make laws that punish politicians for establishing financial connections. Punishing lobbyists as a way to solve the problem of political corruption is like trying to kill a man by poking him in the butt with stick. Punishing politicians for financial ties... That will be a stabbing to the heart.

I don't know where you get info saying that Reagan practiced anything close to "fiscal conservatism

Because it is both historical fact and real world truth - things your education seems to have been woefully lacking. Your grasp of US politics & civics is weak. The PotUS does not control the purse. Nor does he have power to enact legislation. That power lies with Congress. During the Reagan presidency, the House and Senate were both firmly in the control of the Democrat party. Reagan ran on a ticket of cutting taxes, cutting spending, and strong military. He only accomplished 2 of those things. His tax cuts were greaet. His military spending was what ultimately broke the back of the Russian economy and caused Gorby to enact Glasnost (eventually collapsing the Soviet state). But without the vital component of cutting domestic spending, it was not a truly fiscally conservative policy. But it wasn't because Reagan didn't WANT it. He pushed for it, but couldn't get domestic cuts past the Democrat congress.

The liberal left practically has a cottage industry on 'myths of Reaganomics'. But all such verbiage ignores the fact that Democrats controlled domestic spending policy - not Reagan. Tax cuts don't reduce government when you don't cut government spending.

What programs do you think can be cut while maintaining popular support? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? Just those three accounted for something like 65% of the budget in 2008.

I can't think of a single program that I wouldn't cut radically. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some Defense would probably be my first targets. If I had to pick only ONE program though? Social Security. It was a terrible idea when it was started, and it only has gotten worse over time. SS needs to die in a fire. Government has no mandate or role in managing retirement. That is the responsibility of each citizen. If individual states wish to create programs to help, that is their choice. But no federal program along these lines should have ever been allowed to exist.

^ God damn, you're a lying piece of shit.

Reagan more than tripled the deficit:

"The policies were derided by some as "Trickle-down economics,"[18] due to the significant cuts in the upper tax brackets. There was a massive increase in Cold War related defense spending that caused large budget deficits...."
(source)

"Technically, the GOP only controlled the Senate and the White House after the 1980 election, but de facto, they had an alliance with the Boll Weevil House Democrats, led by then-Democrat Phil Gramm, who rammed through tax and spending cuts in alliance with the GOP. Only with the 1982 election did real Democrats gain enough seats to regain operational control of the House. In response to that loss of control by the GOP-Boll Weevil alliance, Phil Gramm resigned from Congress in 1983 and became a Republican, running for Congress, then the Senate.
(source)

You're an evil little shit, whoever you are, and I hope you get what's coming to you.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can't think of a single program that I wouldn't cut radically.


No, I asked which programs could be cut while maintaining popular support. You're the one always going on about how we have to kill health care reform because "the american people are against it".

Would you advocate cutting those programs if public support for those cuts was low?

People apparently hate deficits, but I really can't think of anything significant that could be cut without a large public outcry (the actual public, not just fiscal conservatives). Can you think of any?

lying

Rubber - meet glue. Of course it isn't lying. It's truth. You just don't like it. I already said Reagan increased military spending. No denying that he did. He cut taxes as well, but those tax cuts resulted in an increase in federal tax recipts, rather than a decrease in budgets. The missing piece of the puzzle - which took place in 1982 - was not having Congress to push through on domestic spending decreases. It was Democrat control of congress that stymied that 3rd (and arguably most critical) pieces.

So yes - despite what you're being spoon fed on leftist blogs or liberal revisionist history pages - Reagan was a fiscal conservative. Sadly, without Congress on board he wasn't able to force through domestic spending cuts like he did the tax cuts in 80-81. That left him with only two-thirds of his agenda. It was enough to give the country over 20 years of prosperity, but with ever-increasing domestic spending it was borrowed prosperity.

I hope you get what's coming to you

Why - thank you. I appreciate when people acknowledge my hard work, personal diligence, self-sacrifice, and financial prudence with the suggestion of appropriate rewards. Your realization of my deserved remuneration and accolades certainly indicates that you are not without wisdom even though you allow your reason to occasionally be eclipsed by stooping to profanity and generalized name calling. Keep working on it!

while maintaining popular support

I'd cut all these spending programs and reduce the Federal budget to 1930 levels because it is necessary for the survival of the Republic. There is no money to support our network of socialist inspired domestic programs any longer. We have gone too far, and it has to be cut. Not reduced. Not 'frozen'. CUT. People will be unhappy with that. I understand that reality. I also understand that the nation is destined for financial collapse and subsequent balkanization (or worse) unless we cut federal spending radically, painfully, and permenantly. That is how I see this debt problem. The debt is a time bomb that is leading to the eventual collapse of the entire system. The loss of a few cushy social programs pales in comparison. So - in all honesty - I don't care about 'public support' for the cuts. The cuts are necessities. The programs are luxuries. People who cling to luxuries at the expense of necessities are either selfish or stupid - and I don't have any sympathy for such persons.

I like how Grayson spends 5 minutes discussing the facts on Haiti having a pact with the Devil. And then I also love how quantummushroom posts a defense by Pat Robertson. The defense is that it's a widely discussed and popular urban legend. Wow. What century am I living in?

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by lucky760.

Hey I think everyone should chill out.
Then watch Obama's SOTU speech followed by his appearance at the GOP retreat (including the Q&A).
That's 3 hours of your time and it makes the whole situation very clear, from a management perspective at least.

There are no simple, unilateral solutions. As my business manager told me once;
'Business is like marriage. You can't litigate for bad intentions. If you and your partners want it to work, it's got a great chance. If any one of you doesn't you've got no chance at all.'

These details about what should be cut and which dollar is being wasted are really, totally irrelevant in a situation of mistrust and opportunism. And in a calm, truly patriotic system where everyone wanted it to work we wouldn't really care about the fiscal details because we'd trust it was the best judgement of our smartest people trying to act in our best interests.
Even if we thought they'd got it wrong we wouldn't dementedly attack them, because we'd be nice and calm like.

Then watch Obama's SOTU speech followed by his appearance at the GOP retreat (including the Q&A). That's 3 hours of your time and it makes the whole situation very clear, from a management perspective at least.

The only thing that Obama's SOTU & GOP retreat speeches make clear is that Obama is a petulent, selfish, insecure loser. His policies are being rejected by the American people. Every initiative he puts forth is being reoundly rejected by the public. Obama's version of health care - rejected. Obama's version of Cap & Trade - rejected. Obama's government takeover of industries & money - rejected. Obama's stupid Kenseyian economic vision - rejected. He is being rejected and frustrated at every turn and he clearly doesn't like it. He just wants everyone to shut up, quit fighting his agenda, and goose-step to his whimsy.

"Management perspective". There was no management perspective from Obama. The nub of his two speeches (SOTU & GOP) can be summed up in one phrase... "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! You aren't doing what I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant!"

I heard a clip on Brietbart or some other blog that I peruse. I cycle through Kos, HuffPo, Brietbart & a couple others to see what the kooks are aflutter about. Anyway, the clip was from Rush Limbaugh - and I had to admit that he nailed Obama perfectly. Essentially he said that Obama was sensitive, insecure, and defensive because for the first time in his life no one is there to give him an "A" when he really got a "D"... No one is there to give him a job when he really isn't qualified... His mistakes and stupidity are hanging out for the world to see, and he doesn't like it when he's actually held responsible for being an idiot. He's a little man-child who has had everything handed to him on a platter all his life and for the first time no one is there to paper over his mistakes. He has no mechanism to deal with actual culpability - so he just lashes out and blames everyone else because that's what he's done all his life.

I heard that and it clicked. It his Obama square between the eyes. I've met people like that before, and it describes them (and Obama) perfectly. He's a small man in a pair of boots way too big for him, and he knows it. He's the naked emporer; he knows he's naked, and he's scared to death of people who point it out so he tries to shout them down.