Rick Reuben wrote:That's a distortion. FEMA was moved under the umbrella of Homeland Security after 9/11. DHS is an agency that had never before existed and it has a humongous budget. Once again, you need to be complaining about Big Government, especially Big Government programs that arise out of a fake war on terror, but instead, you liberals talk like this: "The Republicans are shrinking government and we must stop them!". GWB is not shrinking government. GWB is putting government on steroids, to control your lives.

See, the problem with your line of thinking is that you have GOVERNMENT, which is either getting bigger or smaller, rather than any coherent analysis of the various ways in which government is getting bigger and smaller.

Bush and co. are in love with privatization. Fuck, we're privatizing war (see "contractors," where state secrets (torture techniques) become trade secrets (torture techniques)) and even now, with public sentiment decidedly in its favor, the Republican candidates continue to denounce "socialized medicine." They will set up government systems and agencies to fail so that funds may be transferred to private entities - again, private entities.

Your fundamental error is equating Big Government, a term traditionally used to describe Great Society-style projects and European semisocialisms, with the neoconservative Security State. Our current leaders are content to do as little as possible in terms of social improvement projects. Because their interest is ideological rather than strictly practical, furthermore, they are willing to spend lots of money and non-free-market effort if it ensures greater failures (see: No Child Left Behind). They are trying to make government eat itself. Big Business is not a fan of Big Government - it irrationally despises Big Government because of its fear of regulation. It is, instead, the driving force behind this self-destructive government that paralyzes itself until it is able to get its funds unlocked and into the hands of the private sector.

Antero wrote:Your fundamental error is equating Big Government, a term traditionally used to describe Great Society-style projects and European semisocialisms, with the neoconservative Security State. Our current leaders are content to do as little as possible in terms of social improvement projects. Because their interest is ideological rather than strictly practical, furthermore, they are willing to spend lots of money and non-free-market effort if it ensures greater failures (see: No Child Left Behind). They are trying to make government eat itself. Big Business is not a fan of Big Government - it irrationally despises Big Government because of its fear of regulation. It is, instead, the driving force behind this self-destructive government that paralyzes itself until it is able to get its funds unlocked and into the hands of the private sector.

Are we living in the same country? The neo con "security state" is big government. It's rampant, and unchecked, and will continue to grow. A politicians interest is practical not ideological, you can't pad your wallet with theory.

This big government we're living under goes hand in hand with big business. Why do you think the administration is made up of corporate types, like Rice, and Cheney? One hand washes another.

You could not have more completely missed my point.

As much as I feel that voting is poitless and that all the prominent Democratic candidates except for Kucinich and Obama are complete whores, I must still stress this point:

DO NOT FUCKING VOTE FOR RON PAUL IF YOU ARE A DEM OR LEFTIST OF ANY SORT, OR GIVE 2 SHITS ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS.

WHY? BECAUSE RON PAUL IS THE RALPH NADER OF 2008.

IF YOUR VOTES GO TO PAUL THEY WILL BE FUCKING WASTED. THEN WHAT HAPPENS?

PRESIDENT MITT ROMNEY, THAT'S FUCKING WHAT. SERIOUSLY.

I have it on high authority that Romney will take 2008. Then you can kiss equality, or the illusion of equality, goodbye. We've been living in this imaginary world where the Civil Rights movement and Women's Lib were successful, but the reality is the movement is developmentally disabled by materialism and seperatism. Now that the Bush Administration has set up our democratic government like a house of cards, all it will take is a little bump to collapse the system which, with all its faults, could still have been capable of protecting the rights of ALL people.

A Mormon president, people. Mormon. I'm not naive, I know that Bush's religion is just as scary. Maybe scarier. However we can't survive 4 or 8 more years of religious nutballery in the White House.

I still wonder whether it matters who's the figurehead of our country, as the shadow government seems to stay the same, but I am certain that the motif of our nation will reflect our fate in 2012.

This is how, Rick:

Progs go Paul. Stodgy Dems go Clinton or some such yutz. Then Clinton is the Dem candidate. Then she loses the race.

The people who are fed up with the Democratic party are the swing element in the primaries. If they(we) don't achieve solidarity, the Deocratic nomination will be left to the lowest common denominator of Democrats, who will make a bad choice. You see? Maybe Giuliani has a better chance than Romney, I dunno. Either way it's bad fucking news if we get a Republican president, and I think that if the Dems don't come all the fuck together, we will get one. It ain't gonna be Paul unless he's got some strings to pull that we don't know about.

EDIT: UNLESS... you think that we could get Paul as the Repub candidate, and that he will ultimately lose. That would be nice-ish. Then I would suggest that ALL Dems vote for Paul, just to fuck the system up a bit. But I don't think that would work. I think we all need to get behind someone. Unfortunately I don't trust one goddamn motherfucker up there except Kucinich and Obama.

My two primal fears: 1- Nuclear Annihilation. 2- becoming a nation like that of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, but with a hip marketing twist. Not sure which would be worse, but I can forsee Romney supporting at least one of those visions.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Boombats wrote:This is how, Rick:

Progs go Paul. Stodgy Dems go Clinton or some such yutz. Then Clinton is the Dem candidate. Then she loses the race.

You haven't explained how a vote for Paul in the GOP primary ensures that Romney beats out Giuliani, McCain and Thompson. First, you have to explain how Romney gets into the general election before you predict Clinton's defeat by him.

OK Rick I will admit my logic is a bit loose and assumes quite a bit, BUT regardless of who gets the G.O.P. nomination, a Dem's vote for a G.O.P. candidate is a fucking waste. I could re-tailor my statement to say "A vote for Paul is a vote for the G.O.P." but that's a bit bleedin' obvious, ain't it? I would hate to see the dissilusionment of many liberals work to their disadvantage. Ron Paul is an hubristic choice.

There are other reasons to anticipate Romney as the GOP candidate. I think that the greatest danger is not who becomes the GOP's choice, but who becomes the Dem's.

Of course I believe in third party candidates etc etc but I also believe in Cthulhu. Cthulhu has a better chance of materialising in 2008 anyway.

Rick Reuben wrote:I wonder if Liberals know how Big Government will continue to pay Social Security benefits after 2014, when the revenue stream dips below the number of eligible recipients? ( There is not a trust fund, although the public has been deceived into think that there is, by Big Government. )

America's population over the age of 70 *doubles* by 2030:

Better bird flu those old coots off the map if you don't want to pay them their SS and Medicare.

I bet the Liberals think that Big Government will step in and force the rich and the corporations to pay much higher taxes, to take care of a bunch of old people. Yeah, I'm sure the same Corporate America that has been raiding pension funds and sucking them dry will gladly accept a big tax hike to support the welfare state. Ha ha. Maybe the middle class will pay the needed taxes for the oldies?? Oh wait- the middle class has half the jobs it used to, because the idiotic liberals bought into all that neo-liberalist globalism- can't draw more water from that well.

These are facts, Liberals- facts about the irresponsible fiscal practices of Big Government, the lies, the theft, the borrowing from people's promised futures to pay for current wars and for wealth for the elites. That's your beloved Big Government- staring the wave of Baby Boomer retirees right in the face, and saying 'Fuck them.' You liberals just don't get who Big Government works for.

Now, you all go ahead and ignore these facts.

Funny, I don't see any facts in this post.

Once again (p)Rick takes one small paragraph and assigns the meaning to it that he chooses.

Let me sum it up for the good readers of this page:
-The middle class spend too much time thinking about how great it would be to be filthy rich instead of realizing how lucky and rich they already are. 20% of US citizens think they are in the top 1%. Great marketing work on the part of the GOP, right?
-The Dems would be well served to convince the middle class that there's dignity in that socioeconomic status. As long as they think they have more in common with DuPonts than average Joes, which they do not, they will vote in the best interest of the truly wealthy and not in their own.

I believed it when I said it in 2006, I believe it now, and I will believe it until I die. To be middle class in the US, Britain, Canada, or any other developed country is to have hit life's jackpot. Ask the majority of citizens even in a nice place like Kenya and see what they say.


-A

Rick, I just don't (and don't want to, I'll admit) see Rudy as a winner in the finals. Nor McCain. Romney is that right shade of pale baby vomit that I think could make it.

Rick Reuben wrote:

boombats wrote: I could re-tailor my statement to say "A vote for Paul is a vote for the G.O.P." but that's a bit bleedin' obvious, ain't it?

Well, since I know you are too smart to see all GOP candidates as identical, I don't know why you would say that. A vote for Paul is a vote for Paul. There is no such thing as a 'vote for the GOP' in this case, because the attacks on Paul by the money powers prove he is not welcome in their race.

Like I said, if we use our primary votes on the Republican candidate, we are open for a bad Democratic candidate who will lose the presidential election. Thus the GOP wins. Perhaps Ron Paul is not welcome in their race, but that doesn't matter if they get someone else as candidate and we get a loser. I don't think Paul can take the Republican nomination so I don't see a point in voting for him when we could be focusing on getting the best Dem candidate. Jeez Rick I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

I want a Democratic candidate that will win. Not that it probably matters.

I should stay out of this discussion because, well, it probably doesn't matter.

Who are the "globalists" and why do you think that they will benefit from the events that you predict?