Will it be as conservative as Republicans have been in the past (the last few years excluded) no.

But it will NOT approach the levels of recent GOP spending–just my prediction.

I appreciate you bringing the thread back to the discussion on budget & spending. I don’t mind arguing whose view has substance. I can accept that we disagree on that.

Do you not think that history provides a valid basis for arguing the spending habits of leading Democrats? I don’t dispute that this group’s budget could be anything, since it has yet to be passed. I just don’t see Democrats changing direction from the past. If I’m wrong when the budget comes out, then so be it. I will admit it and be happy about it.

It is actually you who are free from substance. There has not been a single Democratic budget passed and you claim to be an expert on it.

Then you use a logical fallacy and when Rusty pointed it out to you in what was (I will admit) a crass example, you get testy and claim that Rusty has nothing to say.

I could go on, but really, I don’t care because you are so blinded by your partisanship and unwillingness to see anything that is objectively true that proves you are wrong, it would be a waste of my time.

My point was not about a physical threat but rather about the inappropriateness of the remark to cover up a lack of a substantive argument. There is no need to make shameful personal jabs, no matter how subtle, to make up for a lack of the ability to respond.

I stand behind my remarks, not to “act like a bad ass,” but to stand for a woman due more respect than the brainless author of some idiotic comment could ever hope for.

Speaking of “obvious”…

I doubt he will. Even if he meets you, how will he know who you are? You try to act like a bad ass, but I think you’re forgetting one thing: You are too afraid to make threats under your real name. Why should anyone ever take your threats seriously?

Not trying to start an argument here…just pointing out the obvious…

The issue here is that you feel the need to use an inflammatory remark to try to make a point, because your argument lacks merit and because you lack intellect. I stay above that kind of senseless drivel.

However, you should hope you never meet this toothless windbag.

but the mailman’s???????

gator****is mortified.

You’re just trying to piss me off. Be glad you’re not in striking distance after the little remark about the mailman. It only proves you’re full of BS.

We’ll see what that budget looks like.

When a budget is passed, you can talk about numbers. Until then, cut the bullshit.

Regarding BS…

“And you must be a prophet if you can tell me what the Democrat Congress’ budget will look like after they’ve been in power all of, what, one day?”

You gonna tell me that the Democrats aren’t going to govern like they have in the past? I’m no prophet, but I can learn from history. Almost 60% of federal spending is entitlements enacted mostly by Democrats. Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, et al. haven’t had a change of heart. They want to enact more entitlements and raise your and my tax bills to fund them.

And how about this from Donald Lambro, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2006/11/06/good_luck_if_the_democrats_win:
“As for spending, an examination of the Democrats’ campaign agenda, titled ‘A New Direction For America,’ proposes to increase a broad range of social welfare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. One analysis by the National Taxpayers Union puts an annual price tag of some $80 billion on the Democrats spending wish list, but that is likely to be only a small part of their spending plans.

“A Senate cost analysis of Democratic spending amendments for fiscal 2006 and 2007 totals $95.2 billion and $74 billion respectively. One of the plans in their agenda is an income redistribution scheme aimed at lower to median income Americans that would match the first $1,000 contributed to an IRA account at a cost of nearly $40 billion over five years.”

Call me whiny, and say I’m slinging BS all you want. Show me the facts.

I can agree to disagree on the Patriot Act for now. I think the jury is still out on the result as well as the future viability of that legislation.

And Bill,

I said early in this thread that I’m not excluding some Republicans from the Socialist title. However, I think it’s pretty clear which party leans further in that direction.

I’m glad somebody’s out there intercepting communications among suspected terrorists without having to wait for a warrant. I understand your beef, but we’ve got to use some common sense.

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/redstate/today-were-all-russianjapanese1970swwii-communists-226219.php

**************
Conservatives lament the absence of strong, principled leaders such as Reagan, but let’s not forget we get what we vote for. Consider our government a free-market business–we get what we demand the most. If we demand conservative stalwarts, that’s what we’ll get.

In the United States now, thanks to the “signing statements” by Comrade Dubya-Do, we now have pseudo “private property” in this country.

Thanks to the Patriot Act, your privacy can be invaded now without an order from a judge.

Thanks to the signing statement regarding wiretapping by Comrade Dubya-Do, you can now have all of your communication transmissions tapped: either listened to, taped, or your email read by your Guvment WITHOUT a judge issuing a warrant. That’s equivalent to Orwell’s 1984 world.

And, lastly, a recent signing statement by Comrade Dubya-Do just a few weeks ago allows the Guvment to intercept your SNAIL MAIL and read it…all without a warrant or a judge’s review of the invasion.

Erick and JSM, seriously, remove your heads from your respective asses and buy a clue as to who is and who is not a Socialist. Dubya and his entire presidency is one big dip into socialism, couched in terms of “we’re doing this to protect you…”

Amazing how 10 years ago you had to beg someone to admit they were a Republican in Georgia. Now all of a sudden everyone wants to be one and they’ll easily bash the other side.