Comments Posted By Sean
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments


My question is, how much "nudging" of certain groups of values can be done before you're sitting outside the big tent? Certainly I'd like as many people for the GOP as possible, if only because that's the only place conservatives have a voice, even if they aren't all fiscally and socially conservative. How many traditionally conservative positions can be abandoned while still remaining a conservative?

Let's say I start out fiscally and economically conservative on every issue possible. But let's say, sure, government should handle our retirement (SS). Sure, a woman has a "right to choose." Sure, the government can tell me how to raise my family. And on an on and on. Do I ever get kicked out, even if I turn into Ted Kennedy, or worst, Obama?

I acknowledge we live in a fallen world, so ideal situations are never going to come our way, but where is the limit? You've said where it's not, so where is it?

You ask intelligent questions. That is not being saracastic just surprised - not used to that sort of thing.

Frankly, you've stumped me. I don't think an economic conservative would embrace Obama or Ted Kennedy. There used to be economically conservative Democrats but they're Republicans now. I believe ultimately, you are asking should there be "litmus test" issues like pro-life or anti-gay marraige or perhaps support for the war in Iraq. The whole point is not to have litmus tests but a general belief system that conservatives share. You've got the Huckabee wing of the party that basically inherits George Bush's compassionate conservativism. They want the feds to spend money on families.

You have the neocons who want America to bring democracy everywhere. You have moderate conservatives like Arnie and Rudy. You have I don't know what he is today McCain. But there is a common, basic belief system running through all those people and movements; fiscal discipline, an abiding faith in the free market, "the government that governs least governs best," a robust foreign policy that promotes American interests, a strong military, low taxes...

You get the picture. There really is a lot we agree on. Why let 1,2, or even more issues that I don't agree with you on stand in the way of us being in the same party and being identified as conservatives? That's the bottom line, I guess.


Comment Posted By Sean On 23.01.2009 @ 17:47


Forget Joe the Plumber, (you should read today's news and see that McCain vetted him about as well as Palin), forget Palin.

Even though I am no conservative, there are smart ones out there working hard. Listen to Mr. Moran, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, etc. if you truly want a balanced government working again. Take your party back and let's have civil discussions from this point on. I'll hold my candidate to it if you will as well.


Comment Posted By Sean On 16.10.2008 @ 13:36


The prison planet article you linked to in this article was written BEFORE the program aired... that's why it didn't attack the program based on its facts. There is now an article on the site that DOES attack the errors and distortions from the program itself, and it is demonstrative and undeniable.

You people here really do belong in a nuthouse. Enjoy your police state...

Comment Posted By Sean On 27.08.2007 @ 16:39


I do enjoy all this moonbat-in-average-Joe's-clothing charade. Oh wait, you called your self "right wing"... you surely must be.

Glad to see you know so much more about the situation than General Petraeus, who has suggested more troops, not less.

Glad to see you trust the Democrats to do the right thing. Those same Democrats who want to "disengage", and who have declared the war lost.

It's fine that you Democrats have these 1/4-baked, treasonous opinions. The curse of a free society, I suppose.

But don't be a douche and call yourself "right wing". Who do you think is falling for that nonsense? You're as right wing as Barack Obama.

Comment Posted By Sean On 29.04.2007 @ 14:02


I'm a conservative guy and I am sickened by comments like that. To slander widows of our nation's largest catastrophe because they don't have the same political views as you is sick. I don't care if I believe in some of her views or not, she is a hatemonger. She is no different than the professor at Colorado, Louis Farrakhan, or anyone else who needs to resort to hate filled speeches to get their point across.

She'll sell books though and make a lot in public speaking appearances now. This isn't an issue of politics to me, it's an issue of class. She has no class, and I personally would want nothing to do with someone who needs to insult widows to get on TV.

Comment Posted By Sean On 7.06.2006 @ 17:16


Yeah - we had the same confusion - but there were actually two limos. The two SS got out of the limo from the front doors - however - this was also where Aaron was the second limo. On the clips from in the limo there was only the driver and Aaron in the front of the Presidential limo. Could be wrong - but that is how we saw it.

And 2 hour special next week - its a second Christmas!

Comment Posted By Sean On 28.02.2006 @ 12:10

Just a comment on the death count from this week. I agree with the 2 cops, 2 SS, 2 terrorists - but we thought there were 7 deaths. The missle that hit the main limo (with the First Lady). This was a direct hit at the driver side - Aaron barely made it - we figured that it was impossible for the driver to survive the blast. Will have to rewatch if there is any physical confirmation - but this was our thinking. Let me know what you think.

Comment Posted By Sean On 28.02.2006 @ 12:02


Your asertion that the federal budget is not like our household budgets is a larger and more significant truth than you may realize and needs to be explored in order to honestly frame the debate over government spending.
The federal government unlike a household is not revenue constrained. With a fiat currency (one that is exchangable only into itself - (not a given amount of gold or other commodity) and a floating exchange rate (not pegged to any other currency or basket of currencies) the federal government does not rely on tax receipts to spend money.
The government spends via a credit to a reserve members bank and debits the treasuries account at the fed. When you pay your tax it in no way improves the govenments abaility to spend and having spent the governments ability to spend further is in no way deminished.
An important accounting identity to keep in mind is the the public sector defecit is exactly equal to the private sector surplus. The private sector can not run a surplus (savings) unless the public sector is in defecit - those budget surpluses in the late Clinton years were a contributing factor to the recession that followed. The notion that our grandchildren will inherit mountains of debt as a result of gov't spending now is misguided.
When the gov't issues bonds it does not do so to raise money. The gov't spends money as outlined above. Bond issuance acts as a reserve drain and is necessary to maintain a non 0 fed funds rate.
Taken to an extreme increasing gov't spending when the output gap approaces or is 0 is inflationary but there is no such thing as the gov't being unable to afford to spend on a certain project.

Comment Posted By Sean On 18.10.2005 @ 13:46


Re: the secondary shelters

It seems to me that since these were further inland than NO, then using them would have placed evacuees closer to prpositioned aid and relief workers.

Comment Posted By Sean On 13.09.2005 @ 00:59

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page