PDA

View Full Version : House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries



Perilloux
06-19-2008, 08:18 AM
House Democrats call for nationalization of refineries (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/index.html#a54ef44,2008-06-18)
Wednesday, Jun. 18 2008

House Democrats responded to President's Bush's call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling. This was at an on-camera press conference fed back live. Among other things, the Democrats called for the government to own refineries so it could better control the flow of the oil supply. They also reasserted that the reason the Appropriations Committee markup (where the vote on the amendment to lift the ban) was cancelled so they could focus on preparing the supplemental Iraq spending bill for tomorrow.

At an off-camera briefing, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said the same. And a senior Republican House Appropriations Committee aide adds that "there were multiple reasons for the postponement" including discussion on the supplemental. But the aide said there was the thought that Democrats may wish to avoid a debate today on energy amendments.

Here are the highlights from briefing

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the most-ardent opponents of off-shore drilling

1115

We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.
Hinchey on why they postponed the Appropriations markup.

:rolleyes:

:mad:

Molon Labe
06-19-2008, 11:44 AM
I believe Chavez has done something similar in Venezuela

LogansPapa
06-19-2008, 12:10 PM
Oh good - so we’re going to $10.00 a gallon immediately then? Saves a lot of hand wringing. Add another buck on for sales tax while you’re at it, because at that price you won’t notice.:rolleyes:

lacarnut
06-19-2008, 01:42 PM
This just goes to show that these politicians do not know a damn thing about what makes up the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Refiners make very little profit because they have to buy the oil at market price. These yo yo's are nuts if they think that they can control the price of a barrel of oil.

A combination of things are driving the price of gasoline up like the falling dollar, the cost of drilling equipment has shot up, the cost of leasing equipment has greatly increased, the easy to find oil is gone ( drilling in harsher environments and deep drilling), federal, state taxes and finally dealing with the morons in DC.

Aklover
06-19-2008, 01:45 PM
Too bad the average voter is too stupid to understand the implications of such an act.

Molon Labe
06-19-2008, 02:06 PM
Too bad the average voter is too stupid to understand the implications of such an act.

It's right from the Central planning play book

"He will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.” - F Hayek

Penguins Fan
06-19-2008, 08:03 PM
It won't happen, but, damn, the Democrats are stupid.

If they took control of the refineries, they would all fall apart within five years.

FeebMaster
07-02-2008, 05:38 PM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.

asdf2231
07-02-2008, 06:02 PM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.

Like hell.

Goldwater
07-02-2008, 07:36 PM
I believe Chavez has done something similar in Venezuela

Yup, please point these people to Chavez so they can see the kind of things that happen.

lacarnut
07-02-2008, 09:37 PM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.

Only a dumb ass non-voter would believe that crap.

enslaved1
07-03-2008, 11:14 AM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.


How, pray tell could any one spin such a pitiful attempt at socialism into a free market solution? This ain't DU, we usually read past the letter behind the proposer's name.

Goldwater
07-03-2008, 01:35 PM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.

Not 90%, but there would be a few unfortunately.

FeebMaster
07-03-2008, 04:35 PM
How, pray tell could any one spin such a pitiful attempt at socialism into a free market solution? This ain't DU, we usually read past the letter behind the proposer's name.

Sure you do. They'd say privatization or quote Reagan and you'd be down on your knees in half a blink. Even the ones who see it for what it is would try and justify it with a half-hearted "well it would be even worse if the Democrats did it."

enslaved1
07-07-2008, 11:33 AM
Sure you do. They'd say privatization or quote Reagan and you'd be down on your knees in half a blink. Even the ones who see it for what it is would try and justify it with a half-hearted "well it would be even worse if the Democrats did it."

I'd call them a spineless socialist, regardless of their party affiliation or what quotes they pull out of their butt. Mind digging out some examples of where such pandering has occurred here? I know we lost the archives, but if we are as dronish as you are claiming, surely some more examples have come up.

biccat
07-07-2008, 11:50 AM
Sure you do. They'd say privatization or quote Reagan and you'd be down on your knees in half a blink. Even the ones who see it for what it is would try and justify it with a half-hearted "well it would be even worse if the Democrats did it."

So don't vote for them.

Oh, wait. I forgot. You gave up your right to participate in our democracy.

GTFO. KTHXBAI.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 12:17 PM
I'd call them a spineless socialist, regardless of their party affiliation or what quotes they pull out of their butt. Mind digging out some examples of where such pandering has occurred here? I know we lost the archives, but if we are as dronish as you are claiming, surely some more examples have come up.

Oh come on. Pick a thread. W's prescription drug plan, Thompson's plan for federal matching funds for retirement, pretty much anything having to do with gun control or immigration proposed by a Republican, Reagan's entire presidency, John McCain. Sure you get a few people here and there who will agree that such and such a proposal from some Republican is crap, but generally the best you get is an "omg democrats worse."

If the Republican's nationalized the oil companies, they could tie it in with taxes. You get a little slice of the profits taken directly out of your tax bill. CU would eat that up.




So don't vote for them.

Oh, wait. I forgot. You gave up your right to participate in our democracy.

GTFO. KTHXBAI.

I vote for the person I feel is best qualified to represent me.

Now go vote for a commie and make yourself feel better.

enslaved1
07-07-2008, 01:17 PM
Oh come on. Pick a thread. W's prescription drug plan, Thompson's plan for federal matching funds for retirement, pretty much anything having to do with gun control or immigration proposed by a Republican, Reagan's entire presidency, John McCain. Sure you get a few people here and there who will agree that such and such a proposal from some Republican is crap, but generally the best you get is an "omg democrats worse."

If the Republican's nationalized the oil companies, they could tie it in with taxes. You get a little slice of the profits taken directly out of your tax bill. CU would eat that up.



That's a cop out. Burden of proof lays on the prosecution. I think you are right about some folks, but I want your proof.

Personally, I think the drug plan was a whole lot of fertilizer,and I don't think the government should bail out those of us who haven't planned ahead for retirement. It IS one of the government's jobs to enforce the laws of the land, and several of those laws dictate the proper way to enter the country and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 01:33 PM
That's a cop out. Burden of proof lays on the prosecution. I think you are right about some folks, but I want your proof.

I'm not interested in proving anything to you. What would it accomplish? If I can show you that there are 3 people on CU who aren't dirty commies, are you going to stop voting for closet socialists? If you do, is that going to change anything?

Tell you what. I'm too lazy to dig for threads, but I'll go start a poll in GD that will show you how much state worshipping scum there is floating around this place.


Personally, I think the drug plan was a whole lot of fertilizer,and I don't think the government should bail out those of us who haven't planned ahead for retirement.

Good for you. Have a cookie and vote for McCain.


It IS one of the government's jobs to enforce the laws of the land, and several of those laws dictate the proper way to enter the country and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.

Yes, yes. That's why the general Republican cry to fix immigration is "GIVE US MORE LAWS!" and not "hey let's get rid of all these social programs that allegedly attract all these illegal immigrants" and "hey let's make it easier to own a gun and defend yourself from the horde of crime committing illegal immigrants flooding the nation."

enslaved1
07-07-2008, 02:16 PM
If your not interested in proving anything, than what is the point of debate?

Quotes are goobering up, but I'll credit you for admitting to being lazy, and will patiently await your poll. and what it proves to me. (although I think searching would be less work than making up a poll)

I will go vote for McCain, out of fear of the alternative if nothing else, and out of belief that dropping out of the system does nothing to change it.

And finally, we know that most Republicans are politicians first, Republicans second. They say what they think will keep them in office, not what will actually fix the system. They also know the paintbrush that they will be painted with if they were to suggest that horrible evil of ...gasp....responsibility to the entitlement society.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 02:28 PM
If your not interested in proving anything, than what is the point of debate?

I enjoy pointing out that Republicans are big government loving hypocrites.


I will go vote for McCain, out of fear of the alternative if nothing else, and out of belief that dropping out of the system does nothing to change it.

Voting for the same old commies every two or four years doesn't change anything either. At least not for the better, depending on your definition of better. At best, you all get to trot out the tried and true "omg democrats worse" line yet again while your guy spends like a drunken sailor and maybe gives you a token tax cut.


And finally, we know that most Republicans are politicians first, Republicans second. They say what they think will keep them in office, not what will actually fix the system. They also know the paintbrush that they will be painted with if they were to suggest that horrible evil of ...gasp....responsibility to the entitlement society.

I'm not talking about politicians. I'm talking about the voters.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 03:25 PM
Oh come on. Pick a thread. W's prescription drug plan, Thompson's plan for federal matching funds for retirement, pretty much anything having to do with gun control or immigration proposed by a Republican, Reagan's entire presidency, John McCain. Sure you get a few people here and there who will agree that such and such a proposal from some Republican is crap, but generally the best you get is an "omg democrats worse."

If the Republican's nationalized the oil companies, they could tie it in with taxes. You get a little slice of the profits taken directly out of your tax bill. CU would eat that up.

I vote for the person I feel is best qualified to represent me.

Now go vote for a commie and make yourself feel better.

OK, W's prescription plan. Your knowledge of this plan would not even fill a thimble. Seniors pay around $30 a month. So it's not a give away program. I guess the media has infiltrated your brain about this awful program. Facts are that seniors pay that monthly fee that comes out of their S.S. check and are charged $4 on generic drugs. My dad takes fluid pills, blood pressure, nitro pills & patches and a salve for an ulcer that cost 4 bucks each per RX. Seniors do not go to Canada and Mexico to get their drugs anymore because the government forced the drugs companies to quit subsidizing foreign countries by selling drugs cheaper to them than here in the US.


If your argument is that it is still costing the government a great deal of money. I say tough shit because employees paid for it. If the politicians had invested the money that was supposed to go into the S.S. Trust Fund for the last 40 odd years instead of spending it, the fund would be solvent and there would be a shit pot full of funds to pay for this benefit.

Nationalization of the refineries (not of the oil industry) is the topic at hand. What good would that do. The largest refiner in the country, Valero, is trying to sell 3 of their 17 refineries. Their profit margin is very slim. BTW, they buy oil at market prices. I don't understand how the government could buy it any cheaper. If the object of the government taking over the refineries is to make gasoline cheaper, it will not work. First of all, the government would have to pay the refineries compensation for equipment if the refineries decided they did not want to play the government's little game. You probably do not know that Exxon is in litigation with Chavez over this same deal and this dumb shit will wind up paying billions. Secondly, what governmental agency has ever had a better track record of running a private enterprise. Bureaucratic f. ups will be the norm and gas will shoot up to 10 bucks a gallon in a short time. The sad part is that they will keep throwing money at it just like this idiotic Ethanol craze.

I will be waiting for your words of wisdom.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 03:44 PM
OK, W's prescription plan. Your knowledge of this plan would not even fill a thimble. Seniors pay around $30 a month. So it's not a give away program. I guess the media has infiltrated your brain about this awful program. Facts are that seniors pay that monthly fee that comes out of their S.S. check and are charged $4 on generic drugs. My dad takes fluid pills, blood pressure, nitro pills & patches and a salve for an ulcer that cost 4 bucks each per RX. Seniors do not go to Canada and Mexico to get their drugs anymore because the government forced the drugs companies to quit subsidizing foreign countries by selling drugs cheaper to them than here in the US.


If your argument is that it is still costing the government a great deal of money. I say tough shit because employees paid for it. If the politicians had invested the money that was supposed to go into the S.S. Trust Fund for the last 40 odd years instead of spending it, the fund would be solvent and there would be a shit pot full of funds to pay for this benefit.

Maybe your father and the rest of his generation should come up with a better retirement plan than "oh the government will take care of me."



Nationalization of the refineries (not of the oil industry) is the topic at hand. What good would that do. The largest refiner in the country, Valero, is trying to sell 3 of their 17 refineries. Their profit margin is very slim. BTW, they buy oil at market prices. I don't understand how the government could buy it any cheaper. If the object of the government taking over the refineries is to make gasoline cheaper, it will not work. First of all, the government would have to pay the refineries compensation for equipment if the refineries decided they did not want to play the government's little game. You probably do not know that Exxon is in litigation with Chavez over this same deal and this dumb shit will wind up paying billions. Secondly, what governmental agency has ever had a better track record of running a private enterprise. Bureaucratic f. ups will be the norm and gas will shoot up to 10 bucks a gallon in a short time. The sad part is that they will keep throwing money at it just like this idiotic Ethanol craze.

I'm not arguing for the nationalization of anything. I'm just saying they could make most voters love the idea.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Maybe your father and the rest of his generation should come up with a better retirement plan than "oh the government will take care of me."




I'm not arguing for the nationalization of anything. I'm just saying they could make most voters love the idea.

My father and his generation paid for the benefits they are getting. They earned those benefits. I guess you are unable to re-butt your challenge of W's drug plan. Maybe you should do some research before you shoot your mouth off at something you do not know beans about.

I say you are wrong about voters loving the idea of nationalizing of the refineries. When the CA legislature tried to pass a tax on the refineries and prohibited the refineries from passing that tax on to the public, the voters soundly defeated that proposition in a predominately Democratic state. Once again, you are ignorant of voters issues and therefore too stupid to vote.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 04:09 PM
My father and his generation paid for the benefits they are getting. They earned those benefits. I guess you are unable to re-butt your challenge of W's drug plan. Maybe you should do some research before you shoot your mouth off at something you do not know beans about.

Your father and his generation paid into a ponzi scheme and were dumb enough to believe the government. Maybe he should enter the Nigerian lottery and save me a few bucks.



I say you are wrong about voters loving the idea of nationalizing of the refineries. When the CA legislature tried to pass a tax on the refineries and prohibited the refineries from passing that tax on to the public, the voters soundly defeated that proposition in a predominately Democratic state.

Taxes do not equal nationalization. Either way, it's all in how they try to sell it.



Once again, you are ignorant of voters issues and therefore too stupid to vote.

Voter's issues. lol. As if that goes any further than R or D.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 05:23 PM
Your father and his generation paid into a ponzi scheme and were dumb enough to believe the government. Maybe he should enter the Nigerian lottery and save me a few bucks.




Taxes do not equal nationalization. Either way, it's all in how they try to sell it.




Voter's issues. lol. As if that goes any further than R or D.

So it's the seniors fault that the government spent all the money that was supposed to go into the Social Security Trust Fund. That crystal ball of yours should tell you the numbers of the next lottery. You are a legend in your own mind. The ponzi scheme is outright thievery by government employees that should have known better. Either way, that's tough shit that you have to pay; knowing that you are paying in part my dad, my brother and my S.S. benefits gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Nationalization will be a no sell. Only an idiot tries to polish a turd. If politicians want to try nationalization of refineries, let them go for it. My oil stocks will do just fine and when these DC critters f. it up so bad maybe the voters will kick them out. A new crop would be great.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 06:02 PM
So it's the seniors fault that the government spent all the money that was supposed to go into the Social Security Trust Fund. That crystal ball of yours should tell you the numbers of the next lottery. You are a legend in your own mind. The ponzi scheme is outright thievery by government employees that should have known better. Either way, that's tough shit that you have to pay; knowing that you are paying in part my dad, my brother and my S.S. benefits gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

It's their fault for relying on the government.



Nationalization will be a no sell. Only an idiot tries to polish a turd. If politicians want to try nationalization of refineries, let them go for it. My oil stocks will do just fine and when these DC critters f. it up so bad maybe the voters will kick them out. A new crop would be great.

Right. You'd still vote for them.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 06:50 PM
It's their fault for relying on the government.




Right. You'd still vote for them.

Once again, you show your stuipidity by blaming seniors who were promised benefits by the federal government for spending, raping, pillaging, robbing the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, you will have to pay higher taxes. Boo Hoo. Maybe if more non voters would go to the polls instead of bitching about this or that, we could have responsible government. It's people llike you that are at fault.

If only we had people like you 40 plus years ago to enlighten us by looking into their crystal ball that the diversion of our funds from S.S. into the general fund and spent was going to cause this shortfall. So, you will have to just suck it up.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 07:02 PM
Once again, you show your stuipidity by blaming seniors who were promised benefits by the federal government for spending, raping, pillaging, robbing the Social Security Trust Fund. Now, you will have to pay higher taxes. Boo Hoo.

I blame them for relying solely on the government for their retirement. I blame them for voting for it. I blame them for continuing to vote for it.



Maybe if more non voters would go to the polls instead of bitching about this or that, we could have responsible government. It's people llike you that are at fault.

Says a guy voting for this kind of crap along with 100 million of his fellow travellers.



If only we had people like you 40 plus years ago to enlighten us by looking into their crystal ball that the diversion of our funds from S.S. into the general fund and spent was going to cause this shortfall. So, you will have to just suck it up.

There were people like me 40 plus years ago saying this would happen. Your father and his friends out voted them because they wanted the government to take care of them.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 07:53 PM
I blame them for relying solely on the government for their retirement. I blame them for voting for it. I blame them for continuing to vote for it.




Says a guy voting for this kind of crap along with 100 million of his fellow travellers.




There were people like me 40 plus years ago saying this would happen. Your father and his friends out voted them because they wanted the government to take care of them.

Social Security pays very little of my total retirement income. My dad and my investments far outpace what we get in S.S. benefits. When did we ever get the opportunity to vote for or against Social Security. You pulled that one out of your yang yang.

You don't vote so I blame you and the millions of your fellow travellers who are either too stupid, lazy or apathetic to vote.

You were voting 40 plus years ago. Sounds like bullshit to me. Like I said, my dad never voted for or against Social Security. BTW, my dad went thru the depression so he never depended on anyone including the government to take care of him. Another one of your idiotic statements.

Cold Warrior
07-07-2008, 07:57 PM
If a Republican proposed this and wrapped it up in some free market, small government speak, 90% of CU would be all over it.

Yeppers! There were threads here advocating "control" over oil prices. This is simply the logical conclusion to such.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 08:01 PM
Yeppers! There were threads here advocating "control" over oil prices. This is simply the logical conclusion to such.

Only in FreeMaster's dreams.

John
07-07-2008, 08:05 PM
Only in FreeMaster's dreams.

On the old board there were definitely threads advocating the 'punishment' of big oil because they were posting record profits while the gas prices are so high. This kind of nonsense doesn't come from every member, but it was definitely there.

Cold Warrior
07-07-2008, 08:05 PM
Only in FreeMaster's dreams.

Nope. I'll look for it tomorrow, but there was a thread here that advocated "controlling" the price of oil and, specifically, of oil drilled in the US. The proposal was such that if a company drilled oil in the US, they would have to sell it to the US at less than global market rates.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 08:35 PM
Social Security pays very little of my total retirement income. My dad and my investments far outpace what we get in S.S. benefits.

Good for you. All the more reason to not rely on it. By the time I retire, I expect to get nothing for all the money I've paid in. I treat it like what it is and always has been, another tax with empty promises to go along with it.


When did we ever get the opportunity to vote for or against Social Security. You pulled that one out of your yang yang.

Your father's generation certainly never elected anyone who said they were going to cut back their sweet sweet government money.



You don't vote so I blame you and the millions of your fellow travellers who are either too stupid, lazy or apathetic to vote.

Good for you. Meanwhile, the people you elect keep screwing the rest of us.



You were voting 40 plus years ago. Sounds like bullshit to me.

http://hooked-on-phonics.com/


Like I said, my dad never voted for or against Social Security. BTW, my dad went thru the depression so he never depended on anyone including the government to take care of him. Another one of your idiotic statements.

Well and good. Then he doesn't need his social security check or W's prescription drug plan.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 09:22 PM
On the old board there were definitely threads advocating the 'punishment' of big oil because they were posting record profits while the gas prices are so high. This kind of nonsense doesn't come from every member, but it was definitely there.

There are always dissenting opinions on any issue; bashing oil Exec., price controls and additonal taxing of oil companies will not reduce the price of gasoline by one penny. Congress passed a bill to increase the Corporation taxes on oil companies only from 32 to 35 per cent and then was shot down by a world court. It is unfair to pick out an entity and tax them more than another just because they make plenty of money.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 09:49 PM
Good for you. All the more reason to not rely on it. By the time I retire, I expect to get nothing for all the money I've paid in. I treat it like what it is and always has been, another tax with empty promises to go along with it.



Your father's generation certainly never elected anyone who said they were going to cut back their sweet sweet government money.




Good for you. Meanwhile, the people you elect keep screwing the rest of us.




http://hooked-on-phonics.com/



Well and good. Then he doesn't need his social security check or W's prescription drug plan.

Like I said, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to collect my S.S. benefits knowing that some of your tax money is going to my retirement account.

You wanted a discussion about W's drug plan but you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. All you have is, I don't want to pay for it. Do you realize that if you get hurt on the job S.S. pays for permantely disabled workers. I forgot, you have millions stashed away in case of a serious injury or disease where you were hospitalized for a year or more. I am unaware of any private insurance policy that would cover this type of situation indefinitely.

Both of us have EARNED our S.S. benefits. Tough shit if you do not like it. Pay up.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 09:55 PM
Like I said, it gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to collect my S.S. benefits knowing that some of your tax money is going to my retirement account.

You wanted a discussion about W's drug plan but you are too stupid to know what you are talking about. All you have is, I don't want to pay for it. Do you realize that if you get hurt on the job S.S. pays for permantely disabled workers. I forgot, you have millions stashed away in case of a serious injury or disease where you were hospitalized for a year or more. I am unaware of any private insurance policy that would cover this type of situation indefinitely.

Both of us have EARNED our S.S. benefits. Tough shit if you do not like it. Pay up.

Quoted for posterity. This one's a classic.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 09:58 PM
Nope. I'll look for it tomorrow, but there was a thread here that advocated "controlling" the price of oil and, specifically, of oil drilled in the US. The proposal was such that if a company drilled oil in the US, they would have to sell it to the US at less than global market rates.

Wow, that kind of proposal is going to make the oil companies jump for joy, cancel all of their foreign contracts and come drilling in the good old USA. :rolleyes: EXXON has already stated that they will cut back 30% of their exploration budget for the US. Corporation taxes at 32% put American Corporation at a big disadvantage. EU taxes on corporations are less. Way to go, our dumb asses politicians in DC are trying to make us un-competitive.

SaintLouieWoman
07-07-2008, 10:32 PM
It's their fault for relying on the government.




Right. You'd still vote for them.

But it was FDR that started the SS fraud. It's the fault of the lib dems if you want to go that route. :rolleyes:

Remember when W tried to allow us to do our own investing for SS? And the dems defeated any attempt of changing from the way things are.

Wait, that isn't the CHANGE Obama is talking about, is it?

Goldwater
07-07-2008, 10:45 PM
But it was FDR that started the SS fraud. It's the fault of the lib dems if you want to go that route. :rolleyes:

True, but like in most countries, every time liberalism starts a new government program, conservatives tend to oppose it until it is realized, then they conveniently forget they were against it and promote their support of it. Every day, in every country with few exceptions this tends to happen.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 10:51 PM
But it was FDR that started the SS fraud. It's the fault of the lib dems if you want to go that route. :rolleyes:

Yeah, 73 years and the Republicans never had a chance to get rid of it. Everything is always the lib dems' fault.


Remember when W tried to allow us to do our own investing for SS? And the dems defeated any attempt of changing from the way things are.

Do I ever. Totally Republican. That's one way to drive up stock prices. I loled just as much at Thompson's matched retirement funds.


Wait, that isn't the CHANGE Obama is talking about, is it?

Nah, that's just a one letter shift from R to D.




True, but like in most countries, every time liberalism starts a new government program, conservatives tend to oppose it until it is realized, then they conveniently forget they were against it and promote their support of it. Every day, in every country with few exceptions this tends to happen.

They're just living up to their name. Conserving government power. The law is the law and once we have a law we can't get rid of it. That would be anarchy.

Goldwater
07-07-2008, 10:59 PM
They're just living up to their name. Conserving government power. The law is the law and once we have a law we can't get rid of it. That would be anarchy.

There have been people who actually reverse it though, they are rare and far between, and even harder to get into office, but they generally have huge impacts when they do.

FeebMaster
07-07-2008, 11:03 PM
There have been people who actually reverse it though, they are rare and far between, and even harder to get into office, but they generally have huge impacts when they do.

Exceptions so rare that it's hardly fair to call them conservatives.

lacarnut
07-07-2008, 11:42 PM
Exceptions so rare that it's hardly fair to call them conservatives.

I think Newt is the only Repub. conservative of national prominence that has a clue of how to turn the federal government around on its heels. It's a shame he did not run. I am hoping McCain has enough sense to pick him as VP.

SaintLouieWoman
07-08-2008, 08:48 AM
I think Newt is the only Repub. conservative of national prominence that has a clue of how to turn the federal government around on its heels. It's a shame he did not run. I am hoping McCain has enough sense to pick him as VP.

Glad to hear someone else is hoping for Newt. If not VP, I certainly hope they have the sense to use him as a strategist in the election and give him a place in the administration. He's brilliant.

BTW, Feebmaster, try to get rid of any entitlement program after it's been established. That's a cheap shot against the Republicans. SS is an untouchable program. Sadly, no politician so far has had the guts or capability to successfully make the necessary changes.

FeebMaster
07-08-2008, 01:49 PM
I think Newt is the only Repub. conservative of national prominence that has a clue of how to turn the federal government around on its heels. It's a shame he did not run. I am hoping McCain has enough sense to pick him as VP.

You would. Gingrich isn't one of those rare exceptions.




BTW, Feebmaster, try to get rid of any entitlement program after it's been established. That's a cheap shot against the Republicans. SS is an untouchable program. Sadly, no politician so far has had the guts or capability to successfully make the necessary changes.

Cheap shot? Hardly. Your boys can't even keep from expanding entitlement programs. I certainly don't expect them to get rid of any.

Did W sign that 4th Plank law yet?

lacarnut
07-08-2008, 02:36 PM
You would. Gingrich isn't one of those rare exceptions.



If Gingrich is not, who is? He is for smaller government and less taxes and has a track record to prove it. So, who is the rare exception in your opinion that has national prominence?

FeebMaster
07-08-2008, 02:40 PM
If Gingrich is not, who is? He is for smaller government and less taxes and has a track record to prove it. So, who is the rare exception in your opinion that has national prominence?

I don't know. I can't think of any.

I was just being polite when Goldwater brought it up.

lacarnut
07-08-2008, 02:51 PM
I don't know. I can't think of any.

I was just being polite when Goldwater brought it up.

More like, many of your stupid comments. Do you have a clue what the Contract with America was about?

FeebMaster
07-08-2008, 02:56 PM
More like, many of your stupid comments. Do you have a clue what the Contract with America was about?

Sure. It was all about the Republicans pretending to want smaller government. They do that, sometimes, when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Cold Warrior
07-08-2008, 03:13 PM
Sure. It was all about the Republicans pretending to want smaller government. They do that, sometimes, when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Exactly!! Best response in this thread.

lacarnut
07-08-2008, 03:27 PM
Sure. It was all about the Republicans pretending to want smaller government. They do that, sometimes, when there's a Democrat in the White House.

The Repubs certainly lost their way when W got into the White House. Under Newt leadership in the House, there were a number of reforms that were proposed. Some passed, some did not. But like I asked, what legislator in your opinion has done more to attempt a reversal of expanding government? You don't know is a rather lame response.

FeebMaster
07-08-2008, 03:58 PM
The Repubs certainly lost their way when W got into the White House. Under Newt leadership in the House, there were a number of reforms that were proposed. Some passed, some did not. But like I asked, what legislator in your opinion has done more to attempt a reversal of expanding government? You don't know is a rather lame response.

Well, if we're just going to go with attempts, Ron Paul*. Not that he ever has or ever will accomplish anything.


Not to be taken as an endorsement for Ron Paul.

Goldwater
07-08-2008, 05:46 PM
Well, if we're just going to go with attempts, Ron Paul*. Not that he ever has or ever will accomplish anything.


Not to be taken as an endorsement for Ron Paul.

Yeah, Paul isn't exactly the most pragmatic of politicians.

lacarnut
07-08-2008, 06:20 PM
Well, if we're just going to go with attempts, Ron Paul*. Not that he ever has or ever will accomplish anything.


Not to be taken as an endorsement for Ron Paul.

They don't call him Dr Nut for nuting. :) However, Newt did pass several good pieces of legislation unlike Hassart and Frist. Calling either one of those Turkey's a conservative is a joke.