People who believe in fairy tales and predictions from them are stupid! - Page 5

I didn't even look that hard and found these two from 2003.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=10

I've complained around here several times that Bush is not especially conservative. People here commented like I had claimed the moon was made of cheese.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=19

Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.

He pushed through the No Child Left Behind bill which was a bill essentually started by and helped along by Ted Kennedy. Conservative Republicans had been discussing dismantling the Department of Education, not growing it.

Bush created an entirely new department in the federal government. Sure part of it was just shuffling older departments around but still it is adding without subtracting anything.

Bush's dad gave us both Clarence Thomas and David Souter as Supreme Court justices. People are just as worried about Bush Jr.'s selections because he isn't a true conservative. Remember Bush Sr. raised taxes and David Souter votes about as liberal as is possible on the court.

Bush is hardly a true conservative. His tax cuts likely rolled back Clinton's tax increases, but I don't think he has rolled back his Dad's increases yet.

That wasn't even a problem with Bush but with multiple Bush/Republican presidents, spelled specifically with court choices, tax policy and federal growth.

Hey Jimmac, I found one more for you too. This stuff is so accurate and from SEVEN years ago that you should be paying me cash to read me.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...52&postcount=3

I think it will cause a bit of questioning within the party regard what true fiscal conservatism looks like. If the nominee after Bush appears to be a free spender as well I could imagine a challenge from a third party Perot type again.

As for the Democrats, they will only come across as a viable alternative on spending when they stop complaining that Bush hasn’t spent enough on every program proposed. That is what is the most amazing thing of all. I’ve not seen a single Democratic press conference deploring Bush for spending too much. Even Clinton, who fought against the newly Republican Congress only had balanced budgets with the help of the Social Security surplus for most years. Yet Clinton was credible in some regards because he would claim some spending proposals were too much and would argue to target efforts instead. (Again he was the absolute master of this)

The point is that both Republicans and Democrat spend way too much. The only real difference is who will kill the economy while attempting to do so or who will kill a 85% working solution to take care of the 15%. I have read a few theories lately about raising the top rate a few percent as Clinton did when the economy is roaring along as a sort of hedge against inflation. I’m going to do some more reading on those as it does have some credibility in my book. I’m sure the middle class would approve of that instead of interest rate hikes as well.

Likewise Clinton and to his own credit, Dean as well have suggested using government programs to plug holes in medical coverage instead of ripping the whole enchalada up for everyone. Of course if they were both honest, they would start tackling the AMA, toss out the prescription medication benefit (and replace it with nothing) , realistically address medical care for illegal immigrants, and finally just admit that everyone can’t live to be 100 for the cost of free. (Medicare)

The lie Republicans have bought into is that they can “hold down” the costs of many of these programs, and not have to be the bad guys cutting them or gutting them, while trying to grow the economy at 4-5% to try to keep up with the program growth. The Democrats don’t lie in this regard, they just want to tax us to death.


I'd say not only was that profoundly accurate then, but rings just as true today. The whole discussion about Medicare reform discussion hits exactly the points I noted seven years ago. RINO versus Tea Party is about continuing to buy the lie versus real reform. The third party rise has been the Tea Party and they have been all about fiscal conservatism.

They aren't the only posts at all of that nature by me. It's just hard to find them because the forum is screwed up in how it has been rearranged over the years. The search function seems to be profoundly broken so older searches are hard to do. That thread somehow ended up under general discussion.


Since must of the time we are speculating in here, only history can tell who is most accurate and to what degree. I seldom agree with anyone on here 100% so at best we could probably assign percentages. You also attempt to turn this into a popularity contest. By default your thinking is of who said what when, who agrees, etc. That isn't logical thinking. It is intent and popularity thinking and is probably left over from when liberals outnumber conservatives in this little exchange by about five to one. You could also say accurate for how long. As an example in that thread from 2003, Tonton declared that housing prices in California were in a bubble due there being loads of $200k houses. I said he was wrong. If you asked us that in 2007 then clearly housing was in a bubble at that point and I can find posts noting that if I so choose. Now in 2011 those prices have fallen and $200k houses are still here but cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars so that is now their largely deflated price. Who's right or wrong when looking at information from 8 years ago? Broad trends sure, but particulars and out of context stuff would be easy to harp on.


You repeat your bad reasoning often in hopes someone will buy into it but no one cares to buy into bad reasoning. The Bush administration isn't responsible completely for any problem we currently have now. It is part of a process. I've clearly declared that the process is generational and above party which SHOULD if anything prove I'm less of a partisan than you claim. The boomer generations worldview and theories they endorse related to it cause solutions that amount to variations on a theme. Bush was not very conservative. He was more like Democrat Lite which I said then and now because it was true. Neo-con is old liberal. Liberals have always believe in nation building just like they believe in society building. They are two birds of a feather.

The Republican-lites, RINOS, Neo-Cons, whatever you care to call them are like those Democrats who declare the war isn't wrong, but it just needs better management. Those Republicans believe government just needs better management of entitlements and a few tweaks around the edges. They are wrong in that belief because they fail to see that once "society" assumes responsibility for something that should be personal, the problems multiply. Given women money for having children out of wedlock and soon it is almost the societal norm that babies are made this way. Give people Social Security and watch retirement savings evaporate. Give them free health care and you won't just see obesity rates continue to inch up, but many other problems will multiply as well. People must care for themselves. The government CANNOT live their lives for them.

Apparently the Democratic plan for 2012 is to scare the country into electing someone to get George W. Bush out of office.