Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
We agree, then, that the Republicans now running the federal government (at least the executive and legislative branches) have abandoned a century of conservative principles to spend money like drunken sailors, notwithstanding whatever lip service they may pay to the idea of limited government.
What eludes me is why you think that what small states were doing at the start of the twentieth century is particularly significant today. For most of the last hundred years, North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons. Now it does. Suggesting that North Korea's recent possession of nukes is an exception to the historical rule may be accurate enough, but it still bothers me that they have nukes.
|
Are you using the Bong tonight. Again, I was pointing out that in the small states the people have inclination towards limited government. Just because some of their politicians representing their states are voting for increased spending during a war at the Federal level does not mean that the citizens of these states have abandoned their anitpathy towards government. Have the state governments in these states started increasing their spending recently? Have they changed their state legislatures from being part time to full time? Just because some of their representatives have voted for increased government spending over the past few years does not mean that the average citizen of these states have changed their inclinations towards small government.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop When I previously invited you to kiss my ass, I didn't really want you to kiss my ass. I'm not that kinda guy, NTTAWWT.
|
No but the statement kiss my ass is just as petty and juvenile as telling me to move to Somalia, and both demonstrate that you are losing the argument and are therefore resorting to juvenile statements.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Maybe people answer the poll questions that way, but then when you ask them whether they want to spend money on education/roads/prisons/etc., it turns out that they do. They like the idea of shrinking the size of state government, so long as it doesn't mean that state government stops giving them fewer services. Arnold, like other prominent Republicans nationally, has figured this out and runs on a nebulous package of "reform" and "reducing the size of government" while not actually proposing to do anything of the sort, since that would piss people off. So we get Grey Davis budgets..
|
We are getting nothing close to Gray Davis budgets. He increased spending by forty percent while he was in office. And it would be nice if the government was spending the money on roads, prisons and schools. Instead it is spending money on bureacracys and no bid contracts.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
At this point, it's clear that you are not bothering to figure out what I am saying, let alone to respond to it, so I'm not going to bother either. But I'm not going to bother in fewer words.
|
I am listeneing to what you are saying, but trying to argue that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government is a completely ridiculous position to take. It is completely unsupportable and yet you try and argue it.
