Have you ever set back and listened to what you write Nic. Drugs, porn, gay rights, self absorption, ME, ME, ME. Its all about ME. Dont you get it. Who cares about anyone else. Its all about ME. About what I want. Who cares what the majority of Americans want.

Actually, Nobody, I don’t do drugs or porn, nor am I gay, so the idea that it’s all about ME, ME, ME is . . . well, wrong.

It’s as if the idea that some Americans might stand up to defend the rights of other Americans was completely alien to you.

Given that you seem to believe that congress should legislate your moral values on everyone else, maybe this isn’t about ME, ME, ME but YOU, YOU, YOU.

Good Ole Bill Clinton. Isnt that exactly what everyone called him?

You renounce the libertarians who stood with conservatives against big government liberals when the Democrats were in power. But once the Republicans came to power, “conservatives� decided that they no longer needed libertarians, and thus abandoned any pretense of smaller goverment.

Why from your own words Nic.

You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be the ones to decide what they smoke or what they put into their bodies,

Have you ever set back and listened to what you write Nic. Drugs, porn, gay rights, self absorption, ME, ME, ME. Its all about ME. Dont you get it. Who cares about anyone else. Its all about ME. About what I want. Who cares what the majority of Americans want.

Give us time we will put drugs in their hands too so they can become non productive drags on society with their booze, cigarettes and drugs. Oh yeah and lets have universal health care so we can drug it up, booze it up, sex it up and then let the government pay for all the ills we bring on ourselves.

Personal responsiblity?

ME. The libertarian Motto. ME, ME, ME.

America will once again turn to Neoconservatives because by the nature of their beliefs they incorporate about 75 percent of Americans in this mix. You know I’m right nic its why you and your kind joined with Neocons in the first place.

- Neoconservatives incorporate about 75 percent of Americans? Where in the world did you get this idea?

- I never joined with Neocons in the first place. Again, where in the world did you get this idea?

I said I want to Return to the Ronald Reagan version of Neoconservatism.

Smaller Government. Stronger Government. Less Intrusive government. Government that tolerates social and welfare services. Lower taxes to expand the economy and a feel good attitude about our nation. A movement that really does embrace most of the countries attitudes and beliefs.

You keep harping about Bush as if Reagan is running the country. I said Im not sure What Bush has given us. But it is not Neoconservativism. Yet in your overwhelming hatred of Bush you keep screaming Its the Neocons fault.

America wants Ronnie to be president again. America wants Neoconservatism back in all its glory. They do not want Liberalism. However with the defeat in 06 the liberals have turned it into a mandate. It was not a vote for liberals agenda it was a vote against Bush’s agenda.

America wants Neoconservatives back in power. True Neoconservatives that represnt the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I repeat. It is why Reagan won the White House in 2 landslide Elections. The people spoke.

Bush learned that unilateralism was a dismal failure in his first administration. As we have learned, we cannot solve the complex ME problems through military might. So, I don’t think thumbing our noses at the rest of the world, and putting our resources into huge weapons systems that may or may not work is the answer. If we arm up, every two bit country will try to do the same- witness what happened in Iran and N Korea after the “Axis of Evil” speech. China is arming herself, and outpacing us economically. Will she be the next world superpower that we have to worry about? If so, as in the Cold War, we will need strong alliances with like-minded nations. So, yes I care about what some Arab in Qatar thinks, and I care about what the Danes and Germans think. We have to, because we have already seen that we cannot go it alone. Even Chimpy now knows this.

And we indirectly caused those deaths- by removing the only stability Iraq had. The invasion led to looting, chaos and civil war. Bremer’s arrogant leadership led to what we and the Iraqis face today. But if you and Cheney are happy with our progress, there, then hey. My feeling is that being a superpower gives us the responsibility not to abuse that power. And invading Iraq with false evidence was a blatant abuse of our power. We were attacked- but not by Iraq. We should concentrate on fighting the terrorists themselves and improving our ability to root out their cells at home.

GB took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and everyone knows it. That is why the WH has offered the “War Czar” position to 5 ex-military with no takers. Here is what one of them said:” A war czar can’t supply the vision that’s missing at the White House. …What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.”

Why is it you guys are so consumed with what Qatar thinks about you. Denmark? Germany? France?

Why this consuming desire to please? We were attacked. We are fighting as much for them as we are for America. I keep posting absolute truths from your own left think tanks and you ignore them and scream “Bush Lied!”

You end your post in absolute hatred. You must be drinking the same kool-aid as tricky Dick Cheney!

While I agree with some of what you say. Some of what you say is undeniably the truth. Yet partial truth does not make truth.

The unadulterated truth is this.

This here shapes my foreign policy and my GWOT.

We are at war. Jihadist and Caliphatists would incite to riot the masses of peaceloving Muslims in such fashion as to make the Muslim religion itself a movement with the intent of global domination thru civil war and unrest. Now that is not the case as of yet. The Muslim faith is a good and honorable, albeit very conservative faith. This aspect of the Muslims must be preserved. The muslims themselves are not yet showing willingness to confront these terrorists and therefore the USA and the Coalition of the willing must be willing to fight this war.

This is a war against the Jihadist and the Caliphatists. The line keeps geting drawn and we kept stepping back and drawing a new line. Well now Bush said enough is enough. Time to fight and the appeasers jumped up in mass and said whats wrong with 50 more years of Lines?

In the meantime statistics overwhelmingly are pointing to the massive growth of Muslim while countries in Europe are no longer even wanting to Breed or whatever politically correct form you choose to throw on the reproductive task. While at the same time the birthrates of Muslims is 3 times what the Birthrates of Non Muslims is.

The war will be won when the Muslims themselves show the willingness to confront their own criminal element (Terrorists, Jihadist. Caliphatist, Radical Clerics)and throw them out. Then the boys can come home. This is like the war on crime. We did not give up after a few years because crime kept happening

We fight crime daily. We have millions of Police officers all over the country fighting crime. This is the same with the global war on terror. It is like fighting crime. It MUST be dealt with. It Must.

Or else it will consume nation after nation until we are all wearing burkas and praying to allah 5 times a day. Is that what you want?

I don’t.

WE have not.

Sunnis killing Shia and Vice versa have killed 100,000′s of people over there. The USA kills terrorists and yes we are not innocent.

This is the exact verbage I would expect from appeasers. Any death that occurs if we are within a 1000 miles of it by default must be our fault.

Nic Neoconservatives want small governement and less intrusive government. Bush has butchered that up. I want to return to Neoconservative roots which I think most people in this country actually do want. However in fairness to him. There is a war. 911 and all. The democrats Demanded a new cabinet level position. Homeland security. They just could not contain themselves in increasing big governement. Once this was done the handcuffs came off and Bush and his people became obsessed with fighting the war on terror and ignoring all the other principals that got him elected.

So yes you are trying to blame Bush for something he really had no control over and that is what causes me to by default defend him. Its why Liberals defend murderers. Conservatives Prosecute them. Its our nature. My nature is to defend someone/anyone who is being falsely accused for political gain. Its why libertarians flocked to Reagan. Its why once we stop letting these silly liberals define the debate which is “BUSH LIED” and get back to who has the best Ideas.

America will once again turn to Neoconservatives because by the nature of their beliefs they incorporate about 75 percent of Americans in this mix. You know I’m right nic its why you and your kind joined with Neocons in the first place.

Anytime the government takes more than 1/3 of the revenue generated by an enterprise, those generating that revenue will begin to look for ways to shelter or avoid payment of taxes.

If this is true why do the EU-Scandavian countries rank at the top for quality of life? Many of your examples work 70-80 hour weeks because they enjoy their jobs, (also make tons of money) the idea that driven professionals working partime (40 hours) makes no sense.

The Constitution should be amended to give the President a line item veto. Budgets could be signed into law with specific expenditures struck out by the President. Those spending cuts (individual vetos) could go back before Senate and Congress to be overruled by a 2/3 majority.

I am curious. Who among you would oppose giving the President a line item veto for budgetary spending?

Why?

This article related to an op-ed on the subject of lower taxes fueling the economy. To say the discussion has gotten off track would be an understatement.

Back to taxes. In response to my explanation of “tax rates” versus “tax revenues” (go back to posting: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/12188/fred-thompson-the-new-reagan/#comment-73391), Jim Satterfield wrote:

The plain hard truth is that Mr. Barney’s argument fails completely at current rates of taxation. At much higher rates of taxation it is a viable argument but no study of any kind has shown that it is a universal rule irregardless of tax rate or amount of income. In addition it simply isn’t a viable argument for the majority of Americans in the tax range he cites.

First, the tax rate I used was an example to explain what a rate is, and how it is possible to raise more tax revenue with a lower rate.

Second, the notion that tax rates don’t matter, even at the rates I used (30 versus 40 percent), is nonsense. Anytime the government takes more than 1/3 of the revenue generated by an enterprise, those generating that revenue will begin to look for ways to shelter or avoid payment of taxes.

Third, the taxpayers responsible for payment of the largest amounts of taxes are business people and professionals who can turn on or off the flow of income. Doctors can work 6 days a week or can turn their attention to golf. Lawyers are no different. Many professions and forms of business, faced with significantly high taxes, will simply cut back or alter their lifestyles rather than pay confiscatory tax rates.

No one wants to become a slave to the state and that’s just how business people feel when the government reaches beyond taking 1/3 of taxable revenue. And I think I am being overtly generous using a number that high. I suspect that Steve Forbe’s flat tax rate of 15 to 20% is the most balanced number. When business people have to stop to think about how much tax their paying, business suffers.

And finally, those who say it makes no difference at current tax rates are ignoring the record high volumes of tax revenue pouring into the national treasury. It is preposterous to suggest those record revenues are not due to the Bush tax cuts. But if you doubt it, watch what happens when the Democrat’s tax increase kicks in.

Nobody- You can’t possibly be serious. Yes, we have killed a lot of terrorists , but we’ve killed hundreds of thousands of civilians also. We destroyed the structure of a society on the basis of a bunch of lies. Yes, the terrorists don’t like us, but increasingly neither do the moderates in the Arab world, or even our own allies. Travelled much lately? If you have you’ll see what spreading freedom and benevolent hegemony have done for America’s stature in the realm of world opinion. You think that if you just indescriminately invade these countries and kill bad guys without providing an economic or stable political base for the people there that you’re winning the war on terror? You must be drinking the same kool-aid as tricky Dick Cheney! Yes, its almost a consensus that we’ve mucked it up!

Neo Conservatism is too complex for your mind to grasp Nic. Sorry but a libertarian who wants to legalize drugs, porn and all sorts of sordid behavior is hardly the posterchild for condemning the conservative movement. However I do understand why you think its bad.

Nobody,

The second line of that paragraph says all we need to know about big government conservatives.

- You renounce the libertarians who stood with conservatives against big government liberals when the Democrats were in power. But once the Republicans came to power, “conservatives” decided that they no longer needed libertarians, and thus abandoned any pretense of smaller goverment.

- You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be the ones to decide what they smoke or what they put into their bodies, and thus you support the War on (some) Drugs, a failed government program consisting of sending SWAT teams to raid the houses of non-violent drug users, filling our already over-crowded prisons with non-violent drug users, and sending millions of dollars in aid to right-ring governments in South America so that they can fund paramilitary operations against peasants and pour herbicibes on the fields of coca-leaf farmers.

- You can’t stand the idea that some people might actually think that they, and not the government, ought to be decide whether or not they look pictures of naked people having sex, and thus you support the Justice Department (which apparently, has been staffed by lawyers from Pat Robertson’s Regent University) going after businesses that sell porn across state lines.

No, Nobody, I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian-liberal. But one doesn’t have to be a libertarian to believe that people have the right to smoke pot and sell porn without being fined or jailed by the government.

Frankly, I could care less whether you dislike such “sordid behavior.” You can believe whatever you want. But your beliefs do not give the government the right to force Americans to live by your moral code. Our government isn’t some tool for you to use to punish people whose lifestyles you don’t approve of.

Our government was founded to protect our freedom, not take it away from us.

In 1975, Thompson began his eighteen year engagement as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., eventually representing clients including Westinghouse, General Electric (the current corporate owner of the NBC Universal-NBC television network), and the Tennessee Savings and Loan League.[6]

By 1982, Thompson worked the U.S. Congress membership as a lobbyist for passage of the Savings and Loan deregulation legislation desired by the Tennessee Savings and Loan League — in this case, federal deregulation legislation allowing for additional government support of ailing S&Ls; giving U.S. thrifts the freedom to invest in potentially more profitable, but riskier, ventures; and eliminating interest-rate ceilings on new accounts to increase S&Ls’ competitiveness. Enacted into law in September 1982, the Senate bill pushed by Thompson was incorporated into the Garn – St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. The Garn – St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 is widely credited with having laid the groundwork for the U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s.[6]

In 1991, Thompson began working with the Washington, D.C., firm Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn as a registered foreign agent representing overseas business entities.[6]

WingHunter says:
* He will arrive and set his sights on overreaching legislation and greedy career politicians and the rest of the nonsense occuring on a daily basis in DC.

* Fred will then come to us and tell us what he wants to do and WE MUST provide him the power to do it.

Now is Freddy going to do this or bring us another S&L scandal, Neil Bush’s education S/W may not make it without MiddleEast support.

We havent really mucked anything up. We attacked Iraq and Afghanistan. Killed lots of terrorists. Cut off funding for Hamas. Are turning Iran into a bankrupt nation. Not a peep out of Hezzbollah.

And yet.

We have mucked it up because heaven forbid “the terrorists dont like us”

Never ceases to amaze me the mentality of an appeaser.

What are you Nic?