True believers-Contract w/ America

**Redleg** · 10-12-2005, 05:21

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

One line sentances against an entire premise, seems to win the hearts and minds of the right. Seems to justify their ideals, and lambast the opposition in a just manner - go listen to more Limpballs, and leave those of us willing to think on our own - alone... OK? So, what exactly is the arguement against what I said, about the CONTRACT?

Your entire premise is deserving of one liners when its so full of idealogue that it intermixes what Reagan stated with what the contract with America was suppose to be about. Which issue would you liked addressed. Pick one without attempting to use demonizing language and maybe I will have an honest discourse with you. However when one is posting in an negative ranting manner which is what most of your post is - why should I attempt honest discourse - we tried that once not to long ago - and remember what happened - you called my family's ancestors a bunch of names. I don't care to get into an insult of family and personality with you today.

None. Exactly, none. They have no arguement to support the reason for the GrandOldPoopies turning away from their former mantra (of 50+ years). Y'all know the one "The Dems spend money, the Dems raise taxes, the Dems can't defend US.".

Since I am not a member of the GOP - I can care less about the Democratic Mantra or the GOP mantra - If the Democrats provide a candidate that I feel best meets my views I am more then willing to vote for them.

Facts; The contract was a joke made by a political party that had already sold its soul (to the MIC and others ... hello Mr. DeLay) to gain power. The contract's only purpose was to show the American public that the GOP had a direction. Even if it was a misdirection of resources and intent.

Oh the temption to make a comment about selling souls to the MIC - must resist.

Lets look at the facts. After the fact of the "contract". Not a single thing - was about saving the social structure - above saving the religious one (which never needed saving). Did it alter anything? Absolutely, under Bill Clinton the budget was not only balanced (which he had already promised), but a surplus was created. Amazing!

And the budget was balance because of why and whom? It takes two houses of congress and the President to insure a balanced budget. Now stick to the fact that Bush does not use the line item veto which Clinton did use several times when it became necessary in his opinion - and I just might agree with you.