The People Have Spoken

<p>Nah, I won't go there...</p>

<p>Michael Moore is a socialist weasel, and I oppose almost everything he wrote there.</p>

<p>Here's an article...</p>

<p>The Republicans have gotten what they deserve. They have proven over the last four years that they are anything but the party of conservatives. Rather, they are just a different flair of the big government statist that true conservatives despise. They heckle the Democrats for practicing “tax and spend,” while they simply “spend.” Under the “small government” rule of the Republicans, some of the most egregious and “big government” legislation in history has passed. The past six years have seen the President use his veto power less than almost any President in the nation’s history, yet our national debt is spiraling out of control.</p>

<p>We conservatives have given them four years of complete control of the government—these “small government” Republicans—and have seen an increase in unnecessary spending. And this increased spending has given us nothing but bridges to nowhere, the encroachment of government into the bedroom, the invasion of our sacred civil liberties, and an assault on the Constitution—in the form of an unnecessary amendment that would make a minority group in America second-class citizens. All of this, of course, was done under the public’s nose while it was busy worrying about our current entanglement in an endless war.</p>

<p>What legislation exactly has the “small government” administration given us? Well, there’s the No Child Left Behind Act; Terri Schiavo’s Law; the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act; the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (remember this one? The one where Bush lied to conservative Republicans about the cost of the Act’s implementation?); and let’s not forget the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq.</p>

<p>Then, of course, there’s the really bad stuff—the stuff “big government tax and spend liberals” wouldn’t dream of—the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act, and most recently, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which could be the most unconstitutional piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts (especially since this one is explicitly aimed at circumventing the decision of the Supreme Court which already said this is blatantly unconstitutional in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld).</p>

<p>When I began writing this article, one of the most grievously theocratic members of Congress, Senator Rick Santorum, had just been ousted. The race had just been called for his opponent with a spread of over 20 percentage points. The Senator who compared the war in Iraq to the eye of Sauron looking at Mordor, who argued that sodomy laws were needed to “protect society,” and who compared homosexual acts with “man on dog” acts, had been defeated. This Senator—who, scarily enough, had presidential aspirations—has been shut out for good. The public soundly rejected his theocratic lies and his support for an administration that seems to only come up with unworkable and unconstitutional policies.</p>

<p>I can only hope that this will serve as a wake-up call to the Republican Party.</p>

<p>Maybe they will move to kick out the theocratic statists that have lately come to dominate the discourse in the party. Maybe they will return to being the party of Goldwater rather than the party of Santorum. Maybe, just maybe, they will realize these Democrats were not only elected by liberals and moderates, but by true conservatives like me. Maybe they will agree with John McCain that the party has become about “power over principles” and that it has gotten too far away from true conservative principles.</p>

<p>If not, expect a repeat in 2008 and beyond as the conservative wing of the G.O.P. leaves for good.
Permanent URL: <a href="http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/viewpoints/2006/11/10/a-view-of-the-election-results-from-the-right/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/viewpoints/2006/11/10/a-view-of-the-election-results-from-the-right/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What a smug, arrogant buffoon Michael Moore is. This guy acts like he and people like him -- radical socialists -- have some semblance of power in the Democratic Party. The only power this fat prick has over anything is his lemming-like douchebag followers, the vast majority of whom aren't even voting age. "We" will do this; "we" will do that. What the Hell is he talking about? </p>

<p>There's a reason why even Hillary Clinton is trying to pass herself off as a moderate. She knows she wouldn't get anywhere near the Democratic nomination if her true pinko colors were on display.</p>

<p>"Michael Moore is a socialist weasel."
"What a smug, arrogant buffoon Michael Moore is."</p>

<p>You, on the other hand, are offering very sensitive points.</p>

<p>"Aside from the reconstruction mission in Iraq -- which is far from over and is just one piece in the ongoing war on terror -- Bush has already accomplished everything he has set out to do with his presidency."</p>

<p>Come on, what had the war on terror acomplished? Yes, you took down Saddam... why? Isn't North Korea far more dangerous?
He didn't have any relation whatsoever with 9/11... And the war on Iraq already costed more american lives than those terrorist attacks.
Moreover, this "War on Terror" in counterproductive. The terrorist target the US, trying to destroy the freedom it stand for, and in response the US passes the Patriot Act, sends ppl to GITMO without due process, ignores the legal requirments to tap phones... in short, halves those freedoms...
Please, what has Bush accomplished?
Well... now I think about it, giving what its known about him, I wouldn't think long-term thinking, or thinking of any sort for that matter, are his strong point, so he probably DID everything he thought about doing..</p>

<p>"Nah, I won't go there..." Intresting contribution...</p>

<p>"I don't know. I'm positive that the Catholic Church can explain it to you, though, if you really are curious. Do some research."
Yeah, right. I don't think so.</p>

<p>fd88ar: Did you misread my post to only say he was a socialist weasel? I pasted an article I wrote talking about my views on the election.</p>

<p>neverborn: No. While your post offers more arguments not to vote Republicans, you still critic MM with no arguments...</p>

<p>_Bush's new masters? Please. The commander-in-chief bows to no one.</p>

<p>Aside from the reconstruction mission in Iraq -- which is far from over and is just one piece in the ongoing war on terror -- Bush has already accomplished everything he has set out to do with his presidency. No amount of traitors... er, Democrats, in either House, can reverse that._</p>

<p>I think that the DNC is going to be just that in Congress. A Do-Nothing-Congress. Why? If they started actually doing something, then they'd run the risk of losing the 2008 election.</p>

<p>Frankly, I think that losing this election could be the best thing to ever happen to the GOP at this point. Just think, had Republicans won, then Democrats could have continued to 'just blame Bush' for everything that ever goes wrong in the country and this time DOMINATE for real (instead of a 51-49 win) in the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. But now, the Republican Party has a chance to regroup and reorganize themselves.</p>

<p>Furthermore, some people are saying that Bush shouldn't be saying all this stuff about 'he'll work with the Democrats' and act all contrite, but I think that this is a good thing simply because it undercuts the Democrats' 2008 election strategy! How can Dems in '08 keep blaming Bush for everything if he's been spending the last 2 years of his presidency with his head down (for the most part) agreeing to what Pelosi and her cadre of Dems have to say?</p>

<p>The MSM has been having a lot of fun replaying these clips of a contrite Bush (on GMA, they couldn't even keep their smiles to themselves) and a powerful Pelosi, but these same clips could come to backfire Democrats if they hope to win the 2008 Presidency the same they won the 2006 Congress -- by blaming Bush.</p>

<p>I'm telling you, I bet that in the next couple of years, the MSM is going to backpedal and say that Democrats actually didn't win as big as "some conservative groups" (note the weasel words) said that they won. Laugh it up, because come 2008, you're going to have to put your "serious faces" (read: upset faces) on and report that Republicans have regained control of the Senate, maintained the Presidency, and possibly regained the House as well. And then you can tell us stories about voter fraud as soon as you make it through that sentence.</p>

<p>"And then you can tell us stories about voter fraud as soon as you make it through that sentence."</p>

<p>Yeah, stories. What part of "Diebold machines can be opened with a minibar key" is not clear?</p>

<p>From Robert Kennedy Jr's article:</p>

<p>"The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count."</p>

<p>But hey, doing that (as well as redistricting to protect incumbents) is a lot easier with Republican Governors, so it should be harder in '08...</p>

<p>fd88ar: Simply enough, socialism is stealing - it is the FORCED redistribution of wealth. Whether a mugger or a government agent is putting a gun to my head taking money, it is immoral and wrong. You have no "right" to healthcare that gives you a "right" to put a gun to my head to get it.</p>

<p>Right. Do you realize the consequences of that approach?
By the say argument, you would eliminate public education. You would eliminate minimum wage (why should I pay a certain wage if someone is willing to work for less?). You would eliminate any sort of social security.
In fact, it leads to replacing the whole tax system with a flat tax for everybody regarding of income, becase failing to do that would also be a FORCED redistribution of wealth.
You would eliminate any sort of regulations regarding the economy, because such regulations, by favouring ones and hurting others, is, in the end, a FORCED redistribution of wealth.</p>

<p>Now, you may find no problem with any of that.</p>

<p>Just bear in mind what such policy leads to. With nothing to prevent monopolies of explotation, big companies will get bigger and bigger, leaving no room for smaller businesses, creating hughely polarized societies, with a few hughely rich guys and a big majority of really poor ones, as happens in many latinoamericans countries in which nothing was done for a long time to redistribute wealth and prevent most of it to be concentrated in a few hands.</p>

<p>You may be OK with this, but I don't think that's the country most people would like to live in.
Maybe you say there are intermediate solutions, but, if you accept your argument, you must necesarily accept it when evaluating any sort of goverment intervention, not just those that goes too far according to your subjective opinior of what too far is.</p>

<p>Regarding the "right to healthcare", it is implied in the "right to live" and in the duty of the state to take care of its citizens. How is that different from the "right to security"? Or you would eliminate the police and the Defence Department as well?</p>

<p>Yeah, let's eliminate any sort of state, because anything the state decides is an imposition of something on someone.</p>

<p>By the way, once social inequiality increases, you have a new problem, since a majority of the population won't be able to pay the flat tax. What do you do with them?</p>

<p>In honor of Milton Friedman, who has just passed away, I suggest that fd88ar read Capitalism and Freedom, since he apparently lacks even a cursory understanding of the subject.</p>

<p>Whoa whoa, are you advocating socialism? I mean, it looks good on paper, but when implemented...simply put: people aren't perfect like paper. Just look at countries that used to be socialist, more or less the USSR there was even a richer ruling class and more of a poor lower class.</p>

<p>Alright...good example, the wellfare system. I don't know how many of you grew up in the inner city, but there are SO many people that take advantage of the system. Whole families, I know a couple that them, their parents, and even grandparents lived on welfare. Its meant to be used for support for a short while until you support yourself...instead, we pay taxes just for these people to live in, better conditions sometimes (i know I didnt have ac in my house until middle school, when these people in section 8 housing had it all their life) for free. Of course they have to show their trying, so they go to the local technical college, get the govt to pay for it, and fail out. Believe me I know, my mother works at one, and it drives her insane. And the same is going to go for healthcare, you're not going a majority of honest, upstanding citizens looking for public healthcare...you're going to get free loading inner city people that I had to deal with for 18 years of my life looking for freebies because they didn't plan and/or kept living on healthcare instead of getting decent jobs.</p>

<p>You do realize that everything the govt touches turns to **** don't you? Look at Social Security, look at public schools, for the last 25+ years they have been going downhill. Make healthcare thats subsidized by the govt for everyone and see how good your physicians are...see how fast you can get an appt. Social security is ****ed, no liberal, conservative, dem, repub, or independant can change it. Clinton tried, and failed, Bush I tried, and failed. By the time I'm old, I won't get social security, so you may as well privatize that to, because why should I pay to get nothing when I'm older....or at the very least maximize my profits in the private sector.</p>

<p>There were a few laws passed at the beginning of the 20th century that prevented against monopolies just in case you didn't know. If you make a fortune you should keep it...you do realize fd99ar that flat tax would be in your favor? It just sounds like your for the gradient system...or maybe its the other way around..you worded that funny.</p>

<p>You do not need socialism to keep public education or economic regulations.</p>

<p>And I have a few things to say to Michael Moore:</p>

<p>"We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us"
Granted conservatives do that too...I've heard my fair share of liberals spout the same.</p>

<p>"We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends"
Then privatize social security, stop thinking you can reform the system...you can't. Stop taking our money now.</p>

<p>"We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie"
If I remember correctly, a hell of a lot of liberals voted in favor of this war based on the same intelligence mistake</p>

<p>"When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay."
Most likely a ****ty doctor that you have to wait three months for to see an appt, because lets face it...you're opening doors to homeless and wellfared people</p>

<p>"Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately."
If I'm not mistaken, conservatives did the same thing...and its the liberal's who are questioning the integrity of still hunting him.</p>

<p>"When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too."
At the jobs Ive worked, there were quite a few females with the same position as me that made more then me. You seriously think this is still a problem? Please</p>

<p>"We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs"
Funny how things change now that you're in power...I keenly remember most of the liberals I knew shooting down many of the Presidents and anyone elses religious beliefs that they made public.</p>

<p>"I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one."
Now you speak of unity, when a few years ago you made a movie that pretty much split the nation apart</p>

<p>cmon...</p>

<p>I apologize. English is not my native language, and I therefore used the word flat tax wrongly.
Even a flat tax will involve a degree of redistribution of wealth, since people with more money would pay more.
I meant to say a fixed tax.</p>

<p>About welfare state...It still works in Europe, particularly Scandinavia.
And about the USSR and such, I'm not advocating Communism. The diference with Socialism is huge.</p>

<p>"If I remember correctly, a hell of a lot of liberals voted in favor of this war based on the same intelligence mistake"
Maybe so, but it was Bush who lied to get those liberals to vote that way.</p>

<p>"If I'm not mistaken, conservatives did the same thing...and its the liberal's who are questioning the integrity of still hunting him."
Yeah, right... by letting his relatives leave the country in private jets when commercial flights still weren't allowed. And Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.</p>

<p>"Funny how things change now that you're in power...I keenly remember most of the liberals I knew shooting down many of the Presidents and anyone elses religious beliefs that they made public."
Liberal's problem is not with people being religious... it's with people trying to pass the values of their religion as laws...</p>

<p>"Now you speak of unity, when a few years ago you made a movie that pretty much split the nation apart"
You see... that's attacking someone just for disagreeing with you. Unity doesn't mean blindly agreeing to anything the GOP does, you know?</p>

<p>Oh believe me I'm not advocating the GOP. I absolutely despise what Bush has done this second term, and I'm glad democrats took Congress...I was not disagreeing with MM in that last remark, there was nothing to disagree about...I'm calling him out for being hypocritical.</p>

<p>The supreme court already went over this...Bush didn't lie, he and every single intelligence community in the world had the same, misleading information</p>

<p>Distant family of him and he himself are different things, I doubt Wafah Dufour has any terrorist intentions. And where did I say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?</p>

<p>Im against religious based laws also..but MM said respecting religion; whenever religion comes up in a talk with a liberal you get the same DISrespect you've come to expect.</p>

<p>Fixed tax? I know of flat or graduated. If there was a flat tax, the rich would be paying less...not more. How our tax system works is the tax percentage goes up as the amount being taxed goes up. Thus the rich pay a few percentages more then the poor. Now all these rich tax cuts you hear bring down the rate at which the rich have to pay, but its still nothing like the poor have to pay. So unless you want the lower classes paying a huge flat tax...the rich are going to end up paying alot less with a flat tax then our graduated system we have now</p>

<p>"Fixed tax? I know of flat or graduated. If there was a flat tax, the rich would be paying less...not more. How our tax system works is the tax percentage goes up as the amount being taxed goes up. Thus the rich pay a few percentages more then the poor. Now all these rich tax cuts you hear bring down the rate at which the rich have to pay, but its still nothing like the poor have to pay. So unless you want the lower classes paying a huge flat tax...the rich are going to end up paying alot less with a flat tax then our graduated system we have now"</p>

<p>A fixed tax is when everybody pays the same amont of money in absolute terms. And I agree that would be a bad thing. I was just answering neverborn. He said socialism is bad becase it is forced redistribution of wealth. Now, my point is that anything but a fixed tax would mean forced redistribution of wealth, so if you support that argument you must support a fixed tax.</p>

<p>"The supreme court already went over this...Bush didn't lie, he and every single intelligence community in the world had the same, misleading information"
Oh, you mean the Supreme Court appointed by his father? Big surprise.</p>

<p>"Im against religious based laws also..but MM said respecting religion; whenever religion comes up in a talk with a liberal you get the same DISrespect you've come to expect."
Maybe so, but that's not what you said. You refer to Bush public claims about religion. That includes him saying that he's acting on God behalf, and, basically using his religious beliefs to justify certain policies... that is what I think is wrong.
About your current statement, I don't believe religion should be base of arguments in a discussion. If in the talks you are refering too religious claims have nothing to do with that, then I agree that disrespecting them is wrong. But then, in practice liberals do respect religious people more than the other way around. I've never heard of liberals trying to ban people from going to church or celebrating Christmas, but I HAVE heard of religious people trying to ban gay marriage, abortion or euthanasia, or to teach creationism at schools because it goes with their religion. I think that's the kind of respect MM is talking about. Of not attempting to pass laws against them, just letting each person follow any religion that pleases or none at all.</p>

<p>Yea, two Justices appointed by his father, and one is even a liberal...imagine that!</p>

<p>And I don't recall referring to anything about Bush's claims about religion...I just said that even when the President said something religious, not even to justify something..the media would be all over it. </p>

<p>Oh and I HAVE heard of liberals celebrating christmas...............and isn't euthanasia a bad thing? unless we're talking about animals of course :)</p>

<p>"Yea, two Justices appointed by his father"
Yeah, plus 2 appointed by him... that's 4 out of 9... looks like a lot to me...</p>

<p>"Oh and I HAVE heard of liberals celebrating christmas."
You see? Liberals tolerate religion up to the point of even embracing it sometimes... On the other hand, would you expect to see any highly religious person attending a gay weeding anytime soon?</p>

<p>"And I don't recall referring to anything about Bush's claims about religion...I just said that even when the President said something religious, not even to justify something..the media would be all over it."
Like...? I'm sorry, I just don't recall this...</p>

<p>"The supreme court already went over this...Bush didn't lie, he and every single intelligence community in the world had the same, misleading information"
By the way... maybe I'm wrong, but if all Bush wanted is to free the world from a dictator that possesed WMD, why Irak and not N. Korea, which even admitts to having WMD, or Iran? If he really wants to promote freedom, why does the US trades with China, a country with regular human rights' violations?</p>

<p>Oh, and about Bush lying, just read this, from the Washington Post, before the war even began:
"Previously, administration officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of these charges in his address to the nation last night."
Was there ever a link with 9/11? When Bin Laden offered military support to Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf War?
Even worst,
"In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," the vice president argued that "we believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was "only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons." Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that "there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.""</p>

<p>"In another embarrassing episode for the administration, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and trade publications."
Wow... yeah, they didn't lie... they just based themselves in reports without checking sources...</p>

<p>"Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing "the power of freedom to transform that vital region" and said "a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." But a classified State Department report put together by the department's intelligence and research staff and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to it."</p>