Perceptions and reality

[PBzeer]

Something that is quite indicative of the difference between the rhetoric and the deed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

[Valiente]

This explains why Republicans spend like hillibillies with a sub-prime mortgage on a double-wide, I guess. They no longer understand basic math. "Raise spending, lower taxes, keep praying! YEE-HAW!"

Besides, only the rich can get behind buffet-style socialism. No one else can afford those kind of "good works".

[sailingdog]

ROFLMAO... Well said..

Originally Posted by Valiente

This explains why Republicans spend like hillibillies with a sub-prime mortgage on a double-wide, I guess. They no longer understand basic math. "Raise spending, lower taxes, keep praying! YEE-HAW!"

Besides, only the rich can get behind buffet-style socialism. No one else can afford those kind of "good works".

[PBzeer]

The one part you forget Val, it has been shown that lowering taxes, raises tax revenues. This can be contrasted with the Dems desire to raise spending, AND raise taxes, which decreases revenue.

Also, most conservatives decry the Bush spending more than anyone else. So while it's a humorous comment, it's a bit inaccurate Except for that last sentance.

[sailaway21]

Thanks for the reality check, John. I'm always on the edge of my seat when Teddy or Francois Kerry start telling us what the poor need. (g)

A similar reality check on perceptions was delivered to me recently in a DVD called, "What Black Men Think". It's not real PC, but then the entire movie is about blacks there own selves. for example: true or false, there are more black men in prison than in college. And there's a great deal more which challenges "our reality".

[PBzeer]

People are continually worried about government censorship, while blithely accepting it from the news media, who decide what we will hear, when we will hear it, and HOW we will hear it. By dealing in perceptions rather than facts, they try to shape not just the debate, but what will be debated.

[Valiente]

If you guys ever find a fiscal conservative who isn't beholden to PACs, backroom marketeers, oil interests or the arms industry, elect that person. It would be a first since Eisenhower.

Both parties are rotten to the core, in my opinion as a dirty foreigner. Their respective worms just produce different flavours of crap.

As far as I'm concerned, a freethinking conservative is utterly unelectable in your country, because the very term "conservative", like "liberal" for some decades now, has ceased to have any commonly understood meaning.

[sailaway21]

A bit of hyperbole I'd say, Val. Mitt Romney's got enough money of his own to reasonably say he is not beholden to anyone. Now whether or not he is a true conservative may be up for question. And i'd probably look for a Dem to be in bed with the arms market, if I though that a likely scenario, since they are usually the ones who get us into wars in the first place. (g)

I honestly think that most politicians take the money and then go and do what they were going to do anyway. If I were a corporate interest of any sort I'd regard investing in political campaigns as a waste of money based on the lack of return.

The problem with campaign finance reform, which is unconstittutional in my opinion and will soon be revisited by the Court, is that it bans freedom of speech and bundles monies in ways that are not observable. Full disclosure, ie...sunlight, is what will illuminate who pols may, or may not, be beholden to.

You are by all means correct when you say that conservatism has lost it's meaning; happens every time we elect a Bush to the presidency.(g) While I do not dispute your opinion of Eisenhower, I fail to see what morality or character he possessed not shared by the likes of Reagan or either Bush. If anything I would be a little suspicious of Ike as he was a lifetime government employee. We conservatives are always leary of that. (g)