The hiporicity of it all

[The G]

I thought we we wanting both side of the argument here on the forum but that doesn't seem to be the case. I hear the complaining from our conservative brothers about all the wastefully spending and then they want their taxes cut. But its your side thats been blowing our money out their asses since the early 90's. So its OK to spend all this money but you don't have to pay for it ? Then they say well their not real conservatives, well hell "New flash" I didn't vote for them. So who did ? Gentlemen you can't have it both ways. When we spend it we have to pay for it :deal:

If I post something thats incorrect call me out, I been wrong a couple times in my life and know the taste of crow. :)

[gtrman66]

You'll get no argument from me about the hypocrisy. I want spending cut to the bone and yes, I want my taxes cut in the process. The feds have taken way too much reposibility from the states.

My voting record has been very Libertarian for many years.

The Repulicans had some good guys, but even they "had enough" and split. John Kasich, JC Watts, Scarborough...

[scol]

I thought we we wanting both side of the argument here on the forum but that doesn't seem to be the case. I hear the complaining from our conservative brothers about all the wastefully spending and then they want their taxes cut. But its your side thats been blowing our money out their asses since the early 90's. So its OK to spend all this money but you don't have to pay for it ? Then they say well their not real conservatives, well hell "New flash" I didn't vote for them. So who did ? Gentlemen you can't have it both ways. When we spend it we have to pay for it :deal:

If I post something thats incorrect call me out, I been wrong a couple times in my life and know the taste of crow. :)

As I've stated in the past Both parties are to blame for the problems in this country right now, pointing fingers at each other doesn't solve anything, again we need to eliminate the two party system and go to an open forum or introduce several party's into the system, realistically I know it will not happen

[Johnny Dangerously]

As I've stated in the past Both parties are to blame for the problems in this country right now, pointing fingers at each other doesn't solve anything, again we need to eliminate the two party system and go to an open forum or introduce several party's into the system, realistically I know it will not happen


Agreed, unlike the libs who apparently know nothing about intellectual honesty, the conservatives don't mind calling our own out when they aren't adhering to the conservative ideology (see my intro post). There's no question that congress has been spending. The debate here is whether the spending is justified and, if so, which part of it. This, my friend (The G) is probably where our paths separate. We, the conservatives believe spending is necessary in certain areas that our Founding Fathers established (e.g. things that state and local govt can't do, like highway infrastructure, national defense, international matters, etc.).

The libs on the other hand believe that other things are more important like defending a person's right to desecrate religious (primarily Christian and Jewish) symbols in the name of "the arts", to allow our national security to be compromised by defending land that could be used to drill (with minimally invasive techniques) in the name of "saving the spotted owl" or whatever, and spending money to educate our children at a young age that (against some of our beliefs) there are indeed "alternate lifestyles" and perhaps they should check them out, and making sure that people who are not even legal citizens get the chance to vote, etc.

This is what I would call a fundamental difference of opinion on how our tax dollars are spent. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the costs for these inaugurations are generally funded with private funds (yes, some comes from the govt coffers for security and whatnot) and these figures are something the press manipulates to tell whatever story they want to tell.

THE GREATEST HIPOCRISY OF IT ALL IS THAT THE PRESS SLANTS THEIR STORY TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA, which, at this time in history happens to be decidedly liberal. All we're saying is let's apply the same standards across the board and make this a level playing field.

Just my humble thoughts.

jd

[nelson]

Spending by the current government has been out of control. Taxes ought to be severely cut. You are exactly right, G. I don't think it's ok to spend all this money.

I do think this massive entitlement trend started much earlier in the 20th century. The current government is just the most recent in a long line of over-spenders. But talking about "who started it" would be a blame game that won't get us anywhere - and I don't really care who started it. Bottom line is, all this has got to change. But it doesn't look like it's going to. :( We're about to unroll a new massive spending program and expanded entitlements... on top of all these ridiculous bailouts.

It's a real problem, we both agree on that.

[MYCAR47562]

i believe all of us has stated how unhappy we are with both party's

[Engels]

believe that other things are more important like defending a person's right to desecrate religious.... symbols in the name of "the arts"

And you accuse liberals of intellectual dishonesty? Take a look at what you just wrote, for pete's sake!

Maybe this is a new angle on this subject, but look at it from a "property rights" standpoint.

Say that some individual wants to desecrate a religious symobl: A Menorah, a Crucifix, etc. It all depends on whose property it is. If some guy buys a Crucifix, takes it into his basement, and spraypaints obscenities all over it - just whose business is it but his? Do you expect the Government to go around checking people's basements, art galleries, or living room walls to see if they haven't "desecrated" some symbol?

Now, if the same individual goes and desecrates a religious symbol belong to somebody else: a Church, Synagogue, or his neighbor - then liberals (like just about everyone else) would certainly support his prosecution for vandalism or theft.

What if the person doing the "desecrating" of the symbol he bought himself had been molested as a child by a religious authority figure? (It has been known to happen, you know..) Is that person not permitted to create his "art" as a protest against his treatment? Or are you suggesting that the Government decide that certain groups and symbols are somehow exempt from protest? I'm not sure how having Government agents deciding this issue really jives with general conservative principles. Unless, of course, you mean that only the groups and religions YOU think are important get this protection - which I suspect is really what you want.

Be very careful of accusing liberals of "intellectual dishonesty." In my experience, and certainly after reading 99% of the threads in this forum, Liberals tend to have far more intellect and far more honesty than any Conservatives I've seen lately.

[MYCAR47562]

And you accuse liberals of intellectual dishonesty? Take a look at what you just wrote, for pete's sake!

Maybe this is a new angle on this subject, but look at it from a "property rights" standpoint.

Say that some individual wants to desecrate a religious symobl: A Menorah, a Crucifix, etc. It all depends on whose property it is. If some guy buys a Crucifix, takes it into his basement, and spraypaints obscenities all over it - just whose business is it but his? Do you expect the Government to go around checking people's basements, art galleries, or living room walls to see if they haven't "desecrated" some symbol?

Now, if the same individual goes and desecrates a religious symbol belong to somebody else: a Church, Synagogue, or his neighbor - then liberals (like just about everyone else) would certainly support his prosecution for vandalism or theft.

What if the person doing the "desecrating" of the symbol he bought himself had been molested as a child by a religious authority figure? (It has been known to happen, you know..) Is that person not permitted to create his "art" as a protest against his treatment? Or are you suggesting that the Government decide that certain groups and symbols are somehow exempt from protest? I'm not sure how having Government agents deciding this issue really jives with general conservative principles. Unless, of course, you mean that only the groups and religions YOU think are important get this protection - which I suspect is really what you want.

Be very careful of accusing liberals of "intellectual dishonesty." In my experience, and certainly after reading 99% of the threads in this forum, Liberals tend to have far more intellect and far more honesty than any Conservatives I've seen lately.

no not really when your proven wrong you just don't post anymore

[Johnny Dangerously]

Actually you're completely missing the point - I am a staunch defender of free speech, regardless of how repugnant it may be to me. I have done time in a combat zone to protect that very right. But what I DO object to is my TAX dollars paying for that ala the National Endowment for the Arts.

As for intellectual honesty - it has nothing to do with "intellect" per se - it has to do with maintaining fidelity to a particular ideology. If this ideology claims to include ethical integrity and someone of your part violates it, then hold them to it. The libs rarely do that - they just close ranks and defend (e.g. Clinton, Rangle, etc.).

Finally, your intellectual snobbery is wearing quite thin. Perhaps you could get it over with and just give us all a copy of your resume so that we'll know the lofty intellectual lineage from whence you come?

[Johnny Dangerously]

no not really when your proven wrong you just don't post anymore

:rofl:rofl

Exactly! Engels seems to have done pretty good at ignoring my response to his snide comment to Scol in the "All Things (Liberal) Considered" thread about "dialogue never has and never will be a verb".

He's so much smarter than us conservatives,isn't he?

:cool:

[Remphoto]

Actually you're completely missing the point - I am a staunch defender of free speech, regardless of how repugnant it may be to me. I have done time in a combat zone to protect that very right. But what I DO object to is my TAX dollars paying for that ala the National Endowment for the Arts.

As for intellectual honesty - it has nothing to do with "intellect" per se - it has to do with maintaining to a particular ideology. If this ideology claims to include ethical integrity and someone of your part violates it, then hold them to it. The libs rarely do that - they just close ranks and defend (e.g. Clinton, Rangle, etc.).

Finally, your intellectual snobbery is wearing quite thin. Perhaps you could get it over with and just give us all a copy of your resume so that we'll know the lofty intellectual lineage from whence you come?

You will note that Engels is very private with any details of his own self-proclaimed experience. No reference in his bio to even in what region he resides. Unless it is an amazing coincidence his forum name "Engels" probably refers to someone he undoubtedly respects based on his stated opinions -- Friedrich Engels. To quote Wiki: "Friedrich Engels (28 November 1820 – 5 August 1895) was a German social scientist and philosopher, who developed communist theory alongside his better-known collaborator, Karl Marx, co-authoring The Communist Manifesto (1848). Engels also edited the second and third volumes of Das Kapital after Marx's death."

Many of on here have been quite open about our backgrounds, experience. and interests. Won't you come out of the closet Mr. Engels -- if that is really your name.:)

[MYCAR47562]

if that really is his name i would hate to see a picture of a 189 year old lol

[Max]

I know who Engels is and I respect his opinions. He is very smart I will give him that but we don't always see things the same way. I do think though that his privacy is his business and he offers a different view and if we didn't get different views then we might never learn anything.

[Johnny Dangerously]

I know who Engels is and I respect his opinions. He is very smart I will give him that but we don't always see things the same way. I do think though that his privacy is his business and he offers a different view and if we didn't get different views then we might never learn anything.

Fair enough, but he would do well to remember that this is a debate about ideas, not about attacking someone's intellect. That gets into the realm of a personal attack which in turn sends the debate in a non-productive direction. I'm not questioning his intellect and I can respect his privacy, but let's talk about ideas, not each other, eh?

[Engels]

But what I DO object to is my TAX dollars paying for that ala the National Endowment for the Arts.

The annual budget for the NEA is approximately $100 million. By way of contrast the Defense Budget of the US is more than $400 billion. Thats four thousand times as much.

I'm quite sure that out of the $100 million arts budget, some amount was spent on art that you, me, and others would no doubt consider "obscene" or "sacriligious" - but then the very purpose of art is sometimes to be provocative. I am reasonably certain that no person was physically harmed in the creation of any of that "art."

But I'm equally sure that of the $400 billion we spent on Defense, a considerable portion was spent in ways that resulted in innocent Iraqi or Afghan civilians being killed. Which I consider to be far more abhorrent. You can talk to me all day long about terrorism and Saddam Hussein - but the fact of the matter is that literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and my tax dollars have been paying for it.

Four THOUSAND to one. I'm not saying that Defense isn't important, or even many, many times more important than arts spending. But I have a very hard time reconciling your relentless outrage over spending a few dollars on a few pieces of bad taste art with your absolute silence on the mortgaging of our country's future on a war that has killed probably a million innocent people with very little tangible benefit for the citizens of the United States.

[The G]

Why do you think Dems are anti religion ?

[Johnny Dangerously]

And therein lies the sticking point. In my mind it's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of principal.

I happen to believe in the war. Retrospectively, we could probably admit that there were some mistakes made and perhaps if we had known now what we know then we may not have taken that direction. However, we are there and we have to see it through to fruition now.

I also happen to believe in the arts in general and specifically the right to free speech. However, this is one of the many things liberals seem to think I should pay for, yet I disagree.

The difference in a nutshell:

The war whether you agree with it or not relates to national security. Our elected leaders (yes Dems too!) voted for it, therefore we have to trust that it was in our best interest as a nation.

The NEA is simply a pork barrel project that in many cases allows people to advance their anti-religion, anti-American agenda. There is no reason at all that I can see the Federal government should provide money for that garbage.

Clearly you disagree with this, but I'm wiling to die for your right to do so.

[MYCAR47562]

The annual budget for the NEA is approximately $100 million. By way of contrast the Defense Budget of the US is more than $400 billion. Thats four thousand times as much.

I'm quite sure that out of the $100 million arts budget, some amount was spent on art that you, me, and others would no doubt consider "obscene" or "sacriligious" - but then the very purpose of art is sometimes to be provocative. I am reasonably certain that no person was physically harmed in the creation of any of that "art."

But I'm equally sure that of the $400 billion we spent on Defense, a considerable portion was spent in ways that resulted in innocent Iraqi or Afghan civilians being killed. Which I consider to be far more abhorrent. You can talk to me all day long about terrorism and Saddam Hussein - but the fact of the matter is that literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and my tax dollars have been paying for it.

Four THOUSAND to one. I'm not saying that Defense isn't important, or even many, many times more important than arts spending. But I have a very hard time reconciling your relentless outrage over spending a few dollars on a few pieces of bad taste art with your absolute silence on the mortgaging of our country's future on a war that has killed probably a million innocent people with very little tangible benefit for the citizens of the United States.

aren't you one of the one's who call's this the war for oil? wouldn't that be a tangible benefit?

well how bout this well cut the defense budget by 100 million if you would cut that program all together.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Why do you think Dems are anti religion ?

If this is adressed to me - I'm not sure where you got that from anything I've posted in this thread. I have not even mentioned Dems (other than saying they voted for the war).

If you're equating the Dems with liberals then that's a generalization I'm not willing to agree upon (e.g. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc.).

If you're saying that I'm implying that ALL liberals are anti-religious, then No, I'm not implying that either. I'm just saying that there are those factions on the left that are anti religion, just as there are those faction on the right that are racist. Neither group should be summarily defined by these characterizations.

[The G]

If this is adressed to me - I'm not sure where you got that from anything I've posted in this thread. I have not even mentioned Dems (other than saying they voted for the war).

If you're equating the Dems with liberals then that's a generalization I'm not willing to agree upon (e.g. Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc.).

If you're saying that I'm implying that ALL liberals are anti-religious, then No, I'm not implying that either. I'm just saying that there are those factions on the left that are anti religion, just as there are those faction on the right that are racist. Neither group should be summarily defined by these characterizations.
good answer.

[Max]

Engels I do think the war is a dead issue. Not everyone that doesn't see things the way you do supports the war. I think hindsight has shown us that the war was more about a personal vendetta by GW then it was to really secure our country.

I also think 100 million for arts is chicken feed compared to other funds we are spending. I see the new stimulus now has 15 billion earmarked for the big three to buy cars for government. I thought the bill wasn't going to have pork on it but isn't that pork to just feed the car company's, two of which don't we already own? I mean after all we gave GM four times it's paper value already.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Engels I do think the war is a dead issue. Not everyone that doesn't see things the way you do supports the war. I think hindsight has shown us that the war was more about a personal vendetta by GW then it was to really secure our country.


I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. This war was authorized and funded by votes in congress. It was based on intelligence information that we and several other countries had at the time. The senate intelligence committee, who had the same intelligence information that Bush had, was comprised of both Dems and Rep voted for this war. Both the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly to support this war.

That said, knowing what we know now perhaps things should have been done differently. However I think it's extremely unfair to Monday morning quarter a president on National Security matters based on sound bites and rhetoric.

GWB has/had his failings, but I find it hard to believe that he would put our military in harm's way over a "vendetta" and I challenge you to come up with substantial proof (please don't bother citing Slate, Salon.com, or similar liberal rags) otherwise.

[Engels]

Engels I do think the war is a dead issue.

Dead issue? An interesting choice of words.

You know what is a dead issue? Whining about a couple of dirty paintings that got a Government grant ten years or more ago. Three of four times a week bleating about how the big bad liberals have some secret plan to take away your guns because of an out-of-context newspaper quote from 2002. Or acting as if a White House intern giving a blowjob is the worst thing that ever happened to our country.

Now, THOSE are dead issues. And yet I'll guarantee you that there'll be a couple of posts on those very subjects (or things equally meaningless) here in the next week.

[Engels]

It was based on intelligence information that we and several other countries had at the time..

I think the historical record shows something rather different.

The CIA, for one, had considerable information showing that the "evidence" presented by the Bush administration was seriously flawed. The "yellowcake uranium" that Iraq was supposedly buying in Niger was nonsense. The CIA knew darned well that the source codenamed "Curveball" was a bullshitter - so much so that they didn't even bother to send a Case Officer to interview him (he was being held by the Germans). And furthermore the revelations of White House insiders showed very clearly that the Bush administration was dead set on regime change in Iraq from the moment they took office. It is just a national tragedy that we, as a people, let them use the 9/11 attacks to frighten us away from asking the difficult questions we should have asked in late 2002 and early 2003. And yes - I blame the "elite liberal media", the Senate and House Democrats, and the people of the United States (myself included) for not pushing back.

The problem that G.W. Bush had is that he is beset by an unshakeable arrogance, and misplaced confidence in his own judgement. He knew full well that there wasn't really any hard evidence that proved, conclusively, that Iraq had a chemical or nuclear program. He just bet the treasure of his country, and the lives of his soldiers, that his hunch would pan out. It didn't. The fact that Iraq fell so quickly into chaos merely compounded the tragedy; but this was, again, the result of the Bush administration's misplaced confidence, combined with a fundamental lack of understanding of the world outside of his own experience. Top military officers, middle-east experts, and intelligence officers told him full well of the sort of breakdown in Iraqi society that would result from the overthrow of the Saddam regime. Those that spoke too loudly had their careers ended.

[Max]

Dead issue? An interesting choice of words.

You know what is a dead issue? Whining about a couple of dirty paintings that got a Government grant ten years or more ago. Three of four times a week bleating about how the big bad liberals have some secret plan to take away your guns because of an out-of-context newspaper quote from 2002. Or acting as if a White House intern giving a blowjob is the worst thing that ever happened to our country.

Now, THOSE are dead issues. And yet I'll guarantee you that there'll be a couple of posts on those very subjects (or things equally meaningless) here in the next week.


OK I'll agree so I challenge you to point out my post that say any of the things you just posted on any forum...............

[MYCAR47562]

Dead issue? An interesting choice of words.

You know what is a dead issue? Whining about a couple of dirty paintings that got a Government grant ten years or more ago. Three of four times a week bleating about how the big bad liberals have some secret plan to take away your guns because of an out-of-context newspaper quote from 2002. Or acting as if a White House intern giving a blowjob is the worst thing that ever happened to our country.

Now, THOSE are dead issues. And yet I'll guarantee you that there'll be a couple of posts on those very subjects (or things equally meaningless) here in the next week.

obama himself said he wants to take them away. on his website he says that he will make making the "assualt weapons"ban perment a key objective

[Johnny Dangerously]

The CIA, for one, had considerable information showing that the "evidence" presented by the Bush administration was seriously flawed. The "yellowcake uranium" that Iraq was supposedly buying in Niger was nonsense. The CIA knew darned well that the source codenamed "Curveball" was a bullshitter - so much so that they didn't even bother to send a Case Officer to interview him (he was being held by the Germans). And furthermore the revelations of White House insiders showed very clearly that the Bush administration was dead set on regime change in Iraq from the moment they took office.

Please cite your source and tell me what happened to all the corroborating intelligence that MI-6, Mossad, the Russians, et al came up with. Did Bush dupe all of them too? For such a dumb guy he was able to outsmart some pretty smart people wasn't he?

[Engels]

Please cite your source

Bush's War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/)

CBS 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)

Time Magazine on Yellowcake Uranium (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html)

CIA Memo on Yellowcake Uranium (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html)

Amb. Joe Wilson's statement on his trip to Niger (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

etc., etc., etc.

The fact of the matter is Bush most certainly DID NOT fool the rest of the world's intelligence agencies. For instance, MI-6 warned British PM Tony Blair (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html)about Bush's determination to find a reason to go to war with Iraq.

[Johnny Dangerously]

Bush's War (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/)

CBS 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml)

Time Magazine on Yellowcake Uranium (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html)

CIA Memo on Yellowcake Uranium (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/politics/18niger.html)

Amb. Joe Wilson's statement on his trip to Niger (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)

etc., etc., etc.

The fact of the matter is Bush most certainly DID NOT fool the rest of the world's intelligence agencies. For instance, MI-6 warned British PM Tony Blair (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html)about Bush's determination to find a reason to go to war with Iraq.


Thanks. I'll look into these.

[cajun]

For some reason Engels the point goes over your head. The publics money should not be used for such projects. This should be funded by private enterprise. You said it was only 100 million dollars but how many expendetures like this do we have? Could we have 100 or maybe 1000 or maybe more. The point is our constitution makes it perfectly clear what were to spend tax payers money on. And the sooner we git back to that plan,the sooner we can get this country back on track.

[Engels]

For some reason Engels the point goes over your head. The publics money should not be used for such projects.


Says you. Who hails from from Louisiana - which receives $1.78 in Federal spending for every dollar your citizens pay in.

What if the good folks in Michigan, Illinois, New York, California, etc. - all the states who pay more in Federal income taxes than they got in Federal spending said: "Well, lets just let those people suck air"

The point is not missed on me at all. The sort of Conservatives who post on this board are obviously so self-involved and selfish that they cannot accept or acknowledge the desires of anybody except themselves.

The NEA funds things in every state, and probably every community of any size in this country. And believe it or not, it does more than fund pornographic art: It provides grants for musems, to symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles, arts education programs, folk and traditional craft.

As I said earlier - we currently spend four THOUSAND times as much on the Department of Defense (and another SIX THOUSAND times as much on other "non-military" security) as we do on the NEA. And you know what - five hundred years from now, our civilization will be judged far more favorably on the sort of art we create, than the increasingly efficient ways we find to kill each other.

[Remphoto]

The NEA funds things in every state, and probably every community of any size in this country. And believe it or not, it does more than fund pornographic art: It provides grants for musems, to symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles, arts education programs, folk and traditional craft.

In our community we have a museum -- funded ourselves. We have a movie theater -- funded ourselves. We also have a not-for-profit radio station -- funded ourselves. During the blizzard of 1978 this community and surrounding rural area was without power and totally isolated for the better part of a week. Snow drifts were almost to the top of telephone poles. No ability to move around except by snowmobile. Unlike New Orleans, we did not expect or wait for the Feds to come and rescue us...they never showed up. Instead, neighbors helped neighbors. People with snowmobiles went and rescued stranded motorists. Families doubled up. No looting, no complaining. That's how this country should work.

[nelson]

The sort of Conservatives who post on this board are obviously so self-involved and selfish that they cannot accept or acknowledge the desires of anybody except themselves.WOOT!! You got me pegged - not being sarcastic, either - I believe in the power of self-interest.

And believe it or not, it does more than fund pornographic art :rofl

five hundred years from now, our civilization will be judged far more favorably on the sort of art we create, than the increasingly efficient ways we find to kill each other.You speak as though you predict we will be gone in 500 years! Dammit that's tragic - we better avert this disaster - by spending more on defense NOW!

:eek: :D

Engels you're the man.

Because you believe it and back it up, you win this distinguished ...
Forum-Political.com "great post" award:

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Graphics/CivOutstandCivSvcAward.gif



...

[scol]

Says you. Who hails from from Louisiana - which receives $1.78 in Federal spending for every dollar your citizens pay in.

What if the good folks in Michigan, Illinois, New York, California, etc. - all the states who pay more in Federal income taxes than they got in Federal spending said: "Well, lets just let those people suck air"

The point is not missed on me at all. The sort of Conservatives who post on this board are obviously so self-involved and selfish that they cannot accept or acknowledge the desires of anybody except themselves.

The NEA funds things in every state, and probably every community of any size in this country. And believe it or not, it does more than fund pornographic art: It provides grants for musems, to symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles, arts education programs, folk and traditional craft.

As I said earlier - we currently spend four THOUSAND times as much on the Department of Defense (and another SIX THOUSAND times as much on other "non-military" security) as we do on the NEA. And you know what - five hundred years from now, our civilization will be judged far more favorably on the sort of art we create, than the increasingly efficient ways we find to kill each other.

Are you saying we shoul be spending the same amount on the arts as we do on the defense and security of the country and risk the safety of your family as well as our's?

[MYCAR47562]

how bout this engels why don't you run an experiment offer a terrorist free room and board. i would say you would understand why we need that money after that but well you would be dead

[The G]

Remphoto You had a republicans governor thats why you didn't get any help. Coming from the upstate I've been through a few storms and can relate.

http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/swio/pages/content/1978_blizzard.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rhodes

And bush drop the ball in New Orleans by waiting so long to help those people. If he didn't think this was an issue he wouldn't still be defending his action or lack of on tv this week. If this had happened in a republican state Ill bet it wouldn't have taken so long.

[cajun]

UUHHH, Engels, the Sunshine state is Florida.

[Remphoto]

Remphoto You had a republicans governor thats why you didn't get any help. Coming from the upstate I've been through a few storms and can relate.

http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/swio/pages/content/1978_blizzard.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rhodes

And bush drop the ball in New Orleans by waiting so long to help those people. If he didn't think this was an issue he wouldn't still be defending his action or lack of on tv this week. If this had happened in a republican state Ill bet it wouldn't have taken so long.

G, my point was no one wanted or expected the help... rugged individualism was at work. The state provided some assistance a few days after the blizzard with the Ohio National Guard, but no FEMA or other Federal help. I was appalled at the attitude exhibited by a number of the victims of Katrina. Their incompetent Democrat mayor should take a big part of the blame.

If you want to make a bogeyman out of Gov. Jim Rhodes, you picked the wrong guy. He was loved by the majority of persons of this state. In retrospect he is in the upper tier of venerated Ohioans, which includes people such as Woody Hayes and William Howard Taft (but not his grandson, former Governor Bob Taft, who as a "moderate" gave Republicans a bad name). Some try to denigrate Rhodes because he was governor when the Ohio National Guard did what they had to do to restore order and lawlessness at Kent State, but that is a topic for another thread.

[The G]

G, my point was no one wanted or expected the help... rugged individualism was at work. The state provided some assistance a few days after the blizzard with the Ohio National Guard, but no FEMA or other Federal help. I was appalled at the attitude exhibited by a number of the victims of Katrina. Their incompetent Democrat mayor should take a big part of the blame.

If you want to make a bogeyman out of Gov. Jim Rhodes, you picked the wrong guy. He was loved by the majority of persons of this state. In retrospect he is in the upper tier of venerated Ohioans, which includes people such as Woody Hayes and William Howard Taft (but not his grandson, former Governor Bob Taft, who as a "moderate" gave Republicans a bad name). Some try to denigrate Rhodes because he was governor when the Ohio National Guard did what they had to do to restore order and lawlessness at Kent State, but that is a topic for another thread.

I read about the Kent state issue but didn't bring it up. The mayor from New Orleans did ask for help.

[Johnny Dangerously]

The NEA funds things in every state, and probably every community of any size in this country. And believe it or not, it does more than fund pornographic art: It provides grants for musems, to symphony orchestras and jazz ensembles, arts education programs, folk and traditional craft.


Admirable, but how and why should that be a FEDERAL responsibility? Is our society so lacking in motivation and creativity that we have to subsidize the arts with TAX dollars? C'mon gimme a break.

Here's the problem - the world in which we live today requires our attention in many categories. Given the broad scheme of things National Security should come first, then the economy, then infrastructure development. If we can't get those right then anything else is irrelevant. Funding the arts with tax payer money is just one small example of MANY tragic wastes of our money proposed by both Dems and Reps alike. Not sure why you're so focused on the NEA, but that's just a simple example.