they should give btw a raise..

Bob, my friend. The wheels of socialism were set in motion long before last november. Rebuplicans don't want to face the fact that Comrade Bush was in charge when Washington started determining how much CEO's were getting paid.

Yep again it's all Bushies fault. He started the fall into socialism and Obama is providing a parachute to make a soft landing. I guess throwing all our money away will slow down the desent as well. If it works out we can all be one big mediocre world with no religion and little ambition. Nirvana!!!

We can then decide horse race results based on need rather than competition. Poor guys like Jeff Mullins can finally be 'understood' and will be given a win so as not to be tempted to violate rules.

LOL. Didnt say anything was anyone's fault. All i said was that we were socialist long before Obama got into office and we've been heading this way for a long time.

This isnt so much about religion or jeff mullins as it is about where we are and where we are headed as a society. Just as we can't spend our way out of our current problems we certainly couldn't continue to borrow our way out of the inevitable.

So on one hand Bush's policies were left leaning (socialist) yet they were also too right (free market economy)?

Crazy isnt it? He spent like a socialist and regulated and taxed the markets like a capitolist. Privatized profits and nationalized debt. Until the whole thing really started to cave...

Even nero eventually had to put down the fiddle.

But who said anything about Bush? The only thing i said about him was that he was in office when washington began to dictate CEO salaries.

There's a big difference you're failing to see. Earlier in this thread, Dell is concerned that the spending is "X" dollars and that it is more than Bush's "X" dollars.

I already admitted that I would surely have said something like I wish we would spend less money on killing people, of course I would have said that, because I believe it. But I would not have had any problem with the "X" dollars of overall spending -- that doesn't bother me now, and wouldn't have then. I can't be any more honest than that. Big government spending isn't top of my agenda for being pissed off. You're saying it is yours, so all I've been wondering here all day yesterday is where your guys' consistency is, and since there obviously is none, what about that keeps you from being hypocrites?

And ok, you don't like the name calling. I take back the calling you guys hypocrites. I'll stick to "typical conservatives," since that seems more palatable to you. It's fine by me, since "typical conservatives" have proven time and again that they mean the same thing anyway.

give the guy season tickets to the yankees. That could be torture these days.

So Al Gore and his larger than life carbon footprint is now a 'typical conservative' or did he give up on that whole green thing.

No, you misunderstand. It's possible to be a hypocrite and NOT a typical conservative.

Much tougher to go the other way it seems.

Well played

You view your side so clearly it's blinding.

Which has what to do with agreeing that Gore is a hypocrite sometimes?

Al Gore is far from the only one. That is my point.

Oh of course not. There are others...it's just not such a rampant, defining party trait like it is for you guys.

Never said we don't have them. The words just aren't as interchangeable as they are for you.

I would argue the other way. Heck just look at the tax issues with the failed cabinet appointments. And don't get me started on the Clinton's & Co

Ah, but like I said we have our problems.

Still, just mentioning the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, Small Government, and Values/Morality is pretty much a hypocrisy trump card for the rest of eternity...especially that last one.

Now, you personally don't fall into this...just the side you tend to fall on does.

Of course you & Chuck and others aren't necessarily socially conservative on certain issues, but it's all about the company you keep when screaming the loudest.

Loose interpretations all

We didn't like Bush's spending either but a lack of a thousand posts on the subject doesnt equal a lack of concern. While most conservatives concede that Bush did spend far too much, compared to obama's spending it is a drop in the bucket. Obama's spending in itself is a concern but WHAT it is spent on is the really troubling issue. And while you may feel free to call me a typical conservative I dont think that I personally fit that bill as nicely as you, Joe, Smooth Operator, and company fit the typical Liberal tag. But that's what keeps things interesting.

:tro: Have to give Brian a win here... there is nothing more hypocritical in this world than the Republicans in power and GW Bush. They are like anti-conservatives. And their "Values/Morality" comes off as a bunch of hate speech.

Arguing about politicians failings is folly because there is no lack of hypocracy on both sides. There are plenty of idiots on both sides as well. It would be nice to address the issues rather than stereotypes but rarely happens and we all fall victim to needling the other side.

Perhaps my assumption is wrong then. Between you guys here, 99% of bloggers, talking heads on TV -- I mean, you'd think if it was a concern, someone somewhere would have been talking about it and making a big deal out of it at some point in EIGHT YEARS. I didn't need thousands of posts or hundreds of hours of cable TV...just a little bit would have really snuffed out the charges of you guys being 'typical conservatives' about it.

The Right didn't seem too upset. Or if they were, you'd have me believe that it was the first time in history that the Right was upset about something and DIDN'T open their mouths?

Please. That's like saying you'd expect me to not complain about something that bothered me for eight years...and that you'd then take my word that it had been deeply troubling me the whole time even though I said absolutely nothing. The Right is more hysterical in reality as they claim the Left is. Just a gut feeling that if they were really upset about it, we'd have heard about it...since we hear about everything else that bothers them even a little bit.

It may not have been said on TV or Derby Trail... but it was said the past 8 years in the Frey family.. My Dad and uncles are as conservative as it gets. Like so bad that I cant even listen to them without getting into arguments about something. They have been so pissed... maybe not the last 8 years but at least the past 3 or 4 years about the Bush spending. It got so bad for them that my Uncle Tom... who is as crazy and as conservative as it gets (Byk can support this).. actually voted for Obama cause he was so pissed at the Bush admin.

It was out there... people just didnt have the balls to say it in public.

It is just viewing of the world through different lenses. The left is far more activist driven than the right. That is not really a debatable point. And lets remember that the last 8 years were not operated under an economic meltdown like the last year. People may find it annoying but as long as the economy is humming along it is really easy to overlook issues. Why Obama's spending spree has to be viewed in the context of Bush's spending seems unusual since they are two different animals under two entirely different circumstances.

That's fair enough. I wasn't really looking for protests in the street...just a mere peep here and there would have been more than enough to make me actually believe that people gave a damn about it then, instead of just saying they do now to use as cover when attacking current spending.

And like I have said here tons of times before in various other threads...I'm reserving judgment on Obama's spending for the time being.

Over those 8 years we maintained a deficit in the area of 400 billion. In three months we've gone from 400 billion to 1,750 billion. Hope this explains the concern over this 'drunken sailor' spending.

Fair enough, so it's the excess of overspending you don't like, not the principle of overspending in the first place.

You could have said that a long time ago and I would have understood, since I've always been the type that has no problem with an alcoholic having 8 beers and buckling his kid up in the backseat before driving to the store for smokes....but goddamn, it's those guys that will have 13 before they do it that really get me! Those guys, they make me incredulous!

maybe I think a deficit of 400 bil is manageable while going to 1,750 Bil again in 3 months isn't. If you change your analogy to 4 beers vs. 17 and a half it will make perfect sense and be correct on the ratio of the numbers. But to make it truly correct those 4 beers were consumed over 8 hrs while 17 and 1/2 were drank in 15mins.

Of course my analogy is outrageous. It was meant to be. Just trying to figure out if it's just excess that bothers you, or principle.

It appears to be the former, and I'm glad we've cleared that up.

It is the excess coupled with the short time the excess has come about. And Brian your analogy was again perfect once the numbers and time were put in correct ratios.

brian in my opinion Obama won because he was the alternate choice in the primary to the war hawk Hillary Clinton, the dems tried that startegy in'04 with John kerry and it didn't work , that and that alone got him by Hillary

Then with bush getting killed by the pols , the media , the world , moses could have run as the repbulican choice for president and it wouldn't have mattered - Obama walked like Funny Cide in the preakness after he beat Hillary in the primary

next election may not be so kind as the "bush factor' will be gone and the actual results of the past 4 yrs will be what the voters will look at , they will not listen to only the words

And thank goodness by then we'll have four years of information to look at, instead of three months!

I welcome that debate when the time comes.

we will have mid-term elections that will get into full swing in about another 9 months , will be interesting to see

the last dem president took a big defeat in '94 in his 1st term - will see what happens in '10

my point being was he didn't have to look anyone in the eye in the stretch , we don't know if he can pass anyone in the stretch

So you are comparing Obama to Bernardini??????

any horse that had it easy and now will be in all out stretch

remember the ultimate outcome was easy , but he only got 52 or 53% of the vote , if things don't go as planned there will be trouble ahead

and he's not a West Point so shouldn't get overbet LOL

Midterms are the BC Classic. HOY Voting isn't until 2012.

Still, I'd rather it be 2007's version than 2008's :D

missy loves mambo on sunday Dell , make sure you get down , maybe 2/1 on her , i think rajiv is going to ride

;) :$: :tro: