A scandal-scarred Republican party asks, 'What next?'

also when i say that the republican may be anti-gay personally, that doesnt mean they woud pass anti-gay legislation if they had the chance. i am anti-asparagus personally, but even if i was king of the world i wouldnt outlaw it.

 

pragmatism may be dead, but straw man arguments are alive and well.

again, i have always favored minimal taxation and restricted spending. if i had my way, social security spending would be cut, but not as much as taxes would be cut. the money people lose in social security benefits would be outweighed by the growth of the economy the tax cuts caused.

and i do not think it that crazy to saddle the future generations with debt. after all, the **** we are building them aint free. they get the freedom, the bridges, the educated population, the better future, they might as well chip in. plus, they will be richer than us so they can afford it easier.

 

I think that if they could stay in office regardless of how they voted on the matter, many would pass anti-gay legislation.

 

We have been over this many times. I don't understand why you act like you don't know martin or I's stance any time this comes up.

My solution to debt is to lower it by cutting spending by more than taxation, but not to eliminate debt entirely.

 

for the record, i looked it up and heterosexual anal sex and oral sex are both illegal in louisiana. but like i mentioned earlier, this is anachronistic nonsense. in fact the one article i read about it said the state claimed it was illegal but also legally barred itself from enforcing it.

even a loser like me had enough of every type of hetero sodomy in louisiana to put me away for a while if were enforced even slightly. nobody caes about this stuff, even republicans.

we will agree to disaaagree about the proportion of republicans who secretly want to outlaw deviants.

 

I agree with red. One of the biggest myths that gets pushed around today is that debt is a useful tool to build prosperity. Wrong! Debt is dumb and should be avoided at all costs. I wonder how much of the overall deficit can be tied to debt service payments and pork legislation.

I want to see spending reduced to nothing beyond absolute necessities. If a congressman wants some pork project then his district gets a new tax levied on them to pay for it. How fast do you think pork legislation would last if we did that?

 

well you do not actually agree with red because he does not want spending reduced to absolute necessities. he favored the increasing of SS benefits under clinton. he justifies this with the argument that more spending was "proper balance" in this case.

you say that, but when i start describing these hard choices, you always oppose it. instead you favor more spending on wasteful things like global warming research and regulation, or numerous other programs i consistently oppose. i dunno how many threads we have had where i oppose the government doing something and you favor it.

cparso's position is between red's and mine. perhaps he should get the all-important label of "balanced".