But there is a big difference between "considered" and "actually is." I can "consider" Chug Bud to be the greatest race horse ever to set foot on a track, but that doesn't mean she (she?) was. In fact, I'm pretty sure Chug Bud wasn't.
Again, if we're discussing fiscal conservatism (the bedrock of conservatism, I believe), or size of federal government (another bedrock), and you're looking at the past six years, I have to disagree with you about the Republicans. Spending increased enormously over the past six years (Bush didn't veto a single spending bill) and federal government grew in size.
There's a basic fallacy in the idea that voting for your party, even when they're doing a bad job, is preferable to voting for the other party, which is that if you continue to put the people doing a bad job back in office, they have no motivation to change- no motivation to break from the borrow-and-spend mentality, no motivation to shrink the federal government, no motivation to veto bridges-to-nowhere. However, knock them out of power, and they have to regroup and figure out how to win votes next time around. It happens on both sides-- remember the Reagan Democrats? (Of course you don't; you're too young.
)
The country is not going to go socialist-- take some time to read some books on the Great Depression and you'll see a time when the country really was in danger of becoming Socialist. Different times. Don't worry.
11-09-2006, 02:25 PM
Threaded Mode