Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (728169)	2/27/2006 4:13:35 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL! Already have, and already have.... (But you shouldn't FALSELY narrow the question so late in the game, Pro. That 'bait and switch' technique you are using is BOGUS.) Originally, you falsely claimed that I'd never posted in support of Republicans, (or conservative policies), which, of course, I do ALL THE TIME. (Support for small government, low and fair taxes, individual liberties vs. the rise of Big Brother and 'big Daddy' or 'Big Mommy' forms of government, support for Democracy, Capitalism, free trade, balanced budgets, etc., etc., etc., etc.)! Now though, you are COMPOUNDING that original FALSE CHARGE (clearly false on it's face) by the use of phony bait and switch tactics. You are CHANGING you ORIGINAL FALSE CHANGE by adding a new, more restrictive, qualifier. You claim NOW that I 'never post in favor of PRO-BUSH Republicans', a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE from what you attempted to charge, for Bush may be a Social Conservative, but He's a BIG FAT FISCAL LIBERAL.... (No conservative when it comes to spending at ALL!) Even so, there ARE occasions where I have supported Bush II administration policies (or proposed policies), and have openly posted my support here. For example, when the President's Tax commission reported back to him, and put forward three different 'plans' for tax reform, I praised the effort, and suggested that EACH of the proposals had some good features in them... and that if you pulled the best features from EACH plan, you could come up with a VERY GOOD tax reform proposal.... (Unfortunately the WH didn't have the courage to go forward with these ideas... just as in the very FIRST year of Bush's first term, when they were considering a variety of tax cut plans, they didn't have the guts to go ahead with what nearly every economist, and their own staff, told them was the very BEST WAY to handle dividends: to make them 100% deductible as a business expense, to the corporation that issues them. Reports indicate that they were 'scared away by the cost'... a very unfortunate turn of events. Never-the-less, I totally SUPPORTED the Republican and Chamber of Commerce proposed tax change.) During the run-up to the latest US/Iraq War, I freely posted on these pages what my beliefs and expectations were. After guesstimating that a war & occupation would ultimately cost the American taxpayer's around 1/2 TRILLION DOLLARS (a cost we are just now reaching... so as it turns out, either my estimate was overly conservative... or else the admin. has screwed-up the occupation worse then I originally estimated....), and weighing that huge and damaging expense against the neo-con's dream of igniting radical governmental change in the heart of the Middle East... I judged that --- although it was a close call --- on balance it would be better for US interests to have the war, and topple Saddam, then to leave the status quo as it was. So, I posted my support for the invasion. (Little did I know that they would DUMP the excellent State Department / Pentagon Experts Group occupation plan for Iraq... and go with the sketchy and apparently ill-considered 'back-of-the-envelope' style 'plan' that they did.) But, who could have predicted that? Many other occasions can easily be found.... Clearly BOTH your ORIGINAL CHARGE, and your BOGUS last minute 'bait-and-switch' charge are demonstrably FALSE. But, if you CHOOSE to remain VOLUNTARILY deaf, dumb, and blind... there is little I can do about that.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (728169)	2/27/2006 4:36:40 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Face it, Pro... the only thing you care about is SOCIAL Conservatism --- you are totally blind to FISCAL Conservatism. What you want is a Big Daddy Government to enforce your favored social norms and strictures upon the rest of the population... (whether they want it or not, I guess). When it comes to TRADITIONALLY CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS such as small government, low taxes, individual liberty, freedom from government control and oppression, etc., you may MOUTH THE WORDS sometimes... but you are quite willing to toss these principles overboard whenever they get in the way of your social goals. So, I guess you have the credits to preach to your fellow social conservatives forces... but you have NO CRED AT ALL when it comes to fiscal conservatism or small government values and personal liberties.