"David Brooks of the New York Times"

Do you realize how stupid you look quoting an article from the Slimes? And then we have Bork telling us that spending will undo the tax cuts which is a total load of crap. If the tax cuts are undone, you will have only yourself to thank, tool.

David Brooks is the Senior Editor at the Weekly Standard as well. Don't confuse him with the morons in the NYT's op/ed pages. Also, I'd be careful of using terms like "undoing tax cuts." It is equivalent to.....raising taxes. If you spend more than you have in the past and don't cut anything else, than you must .....raise taxes. So, if you are against cutting spending and are OK with increasing spending on some (not all) ridiculous projects, than you are in support of (c'mon, you can say it with me).......raising taxes. I'd suggest looking up the local community college and seeing if there is any space in their Econ 101 classes, it may help you out.

"David Brooks is the Senior Editor at the Weekly Standard as well. Don't confuse him with the morons in the NYT's op/ed pages."

So he's not a regular? Must have something to say that they want to publish! And your bro there decided to parrot it.

"Also, I'd be careful of using terms like "undoing tax cuts."

You would? Well your brother quotes people that don't:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality).

Is quoting a crime for me and not for the, little one?

"It is equivalent to.....raising taxes."

It sure as hell is. Did you think I advocated that? What gave you that impression? Nothing? Right. On we go.

"If you spend more than you have in the past and don't cut anything else, than you must .....raise taxes."

BZZZZZZZZT!!! Bush spent more and cut taxes. The tax cuts actually ended up increasing government revenue, but during the time it had yet to kick in, we racked up a bit of debt.

"So, if you are against cutting spending"

I'm fine with cutting it. I've been encouraging your ham fisted bro to focus on the invidual "spending" items and lay off the hyperbole. His goal seems to be to destroy the Republican party rather than save it.

"and are OK with increasing spending on some (not all) ridiculous projects,"

Wha? Coherence alert! What "ridiculous" projects do you think I'm ok with "increasing spending" on?

"than you are in support of (c'mon, you can say it with me).......raising taxes."

I'm (c'mon you can say it with me) totally not in support of raising taxes. You're a bit too dumb to comprehend this, so I'll lay it out nice and easy for ya: There's tax revenue, there's the federal budget, and then there's the public debt. Not enough revenue? Increase revenue (by lowering taxes thereby stimulating the economy), raising taxes (which will only bring in more revenue in the short term) or take on some debt. Then there is the manufactured emergency that you and you brother have purchased whole hog.

"I'd suggest looking up the local community college and seeing if there is any space in their Econ 101 classes, it may help you out."

That's cute. I suggest you grow a brain, but I don't expect that to happen overnight. In the mean time, back to school? :)

Hey, we find a little common ground with cutting individual spending items. Can you discuss this further since you seem to get too caught up in personal attacks? I'd honestly like to know your views.

"you seem to get too caught up in personal attacks? "

I'd like to know how the following qualifies as anything other than a personal attack:

"I'd suggest looking up the local community college and seeing if there is any space in their Econ 101 classes, it may help you out."

Can you can admit that we both indulged in invective?

"Hey, we find a little common ground with cutting individual spending items.
Can you discuss this further
I'd honestly like to know your views."

I'm quite familiar with the budget, but I am not a budget hawk (I don't sit around obsessing about every penny being spent). I understand that in order to make the tax burden less oppressive, we will have to trim some programs, eliminate some, reform the structure of some, and improve efficiency as much as possible. On each point, we should expect that we will be called upon to answer for any action taken. Do we eliminate the Social Security program? It would be consistent with the ideal of smaller government and it would limit government involvement in our lives. Will it sell? Not a chance. So we move to reform the institution and make it self sustaining. That same dynamic can be applied across the board. Budget hawks dislike Bush's medicare prescription drug program. That is understandable, but that program has popular support among the voting public. If you would like to know my position on any specific spending subjects, you have but to ask. And feel free to ask for clarification on anything I've stated thus far.

Hey JLB, you little weasel, how come you say?:

Can you discuss this further since you seem to get too caught up in personal attacks?

in the next post after you said this?:

So, if you are against cutting spending and are OK with increasing spending on some (not all) ridiculous projects, than you are in support of (c'mon, you can say it with me).......raising taxes. I'd suggest looking up the local community college and seeing if there is any space in their Econ 101 classes, it may help you out.

That is a personal attack. That is a condescending piece of dog crap that emanated from your rat hole. And then you want civility?

All the while doing the "mouthpiece thing" for your brother who uses you as a hit man and "'splainer." At least its good to know that this arrogance and condescending attitude seems to run in the family.

If your nasty brother (you are still speaking for him, right?) and Republicans have anything in common, it would be purely by accident or random chance. See, we actually support the Republican party whereas you two/one/whatever are Hell-bent on destroying it with your smug pontificating. Eat my shorts you little creep.

You talk about finding common ground but you two don't want common ground. you "know" you're right and anyone who points out your destructive behavior is nothing but an attack dog. It takes two of you and even then you can't mount a decent explanation for why you're tearing down the GOP - on a site called GOP Bloggers no less. You and your brother Jonnie boy turn my stomach. Why don't you both go find that jerk Badnarik and discuss zip codes and income taxes with him?

Note: modification to comment removed by moderator.

VE, thanks for your comments. I think we can agree that there can be pork to be trimmed. How it is done may be where we differ. That's OK, I can agree to disagree. I'll no longer post any personal sarcasm, it is unproductive. Scar, I think your post is unfortuante. You may have some valid points of discussion on this blog. But, until you can keep the name calling out, your message will not be heard. As the old saying goes, "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

I'll no longer post any personal sarcasm, it is unproductive.

Sarcasm? You call VE's comments attacks and yours are oh-so mild "sarcasms?" What a phony.

Scar, I think your post is unfortuante (sic).

I would hope that you would, you weasel. It must suck being exposed for the hypocrite you are.

You may have some valid points of discussion on this blog.

Like I care what you think is valid. I think you're a fool so what does your opinion matter?

But, until you can keep the name calling out, your message will not be heard.

You responded to it. It's being heard. But I don't care whether you do or not. I will not stand by and watch you and your hateful brother tear down the Republican party without pointing out what jerks you both are.

As the old saying goes, "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Here's one four you, weasel, "Go piss up a rope."

"VE, thanks for your comments. I think we can agree that there can be pork to be trimmed. How it is done may be where we differ. That's OK, I can agree to disagree."

Let's not stop there, JLB. Let's discuss "pork". It's called that because these budget items are elected representatatives "bringing home the bacon" (in the form of federal tax revenue) to the constituents who elected them. According to Citizens Against Government Waste's Pig Book, the Federal Budget contained 28 billion in "pork" in 2005. Let's put that in perspective, because to any one individual, 28,000,000,000 dollars sounds like a massive amount of money. Except that the Federal Budget (less Social Security!) is 2.4 Trillion. That's 2,400,000,000,000 dollars. Which you'd think was absolutely crushing! Except that the GDP is 12 trillion dollars. That's 12,000,000,000,000 dollars. Now is .85 Percent of the entire Federal Budget, to you, worth gutting the Republican party over? Is it worth using hyperbole against the Republican party? Not all of that 28 billion is Republican pork, a fair amount is Donkey portk as well. Who does Jonathan spend all his time trashing over pork? Do you understand why I feel Jonathan protests too much? Engaging in constructive critisism and letting reason prevail over passion is a small and logical price to pay for loyalty.

"Chill out and re-read what you wrote. "Weasel?" "Rat hole?" "Nasty?" "Creep?"

Jonathan! Chill out and read what YOU wrote (or in this case quoted)! You are subscribing to the idea that we might have to end some of Bush's tax cuts!!! You're buying into that! I don't care if Katrina costs 200 billion as claimed (though I doubt it will), adding that amount to the national debt won't cause us to suffer in the least! What you are doing is providing AID AND COMFORT to the Democrats.

"All because some people value principles over party?"

Don't kid yourself! This is principle over principle. You are engaged in unnecessarily self destrucitive behavior in regards to the Republican party. On your own blog, that's peachy, on GOPBLOGGERS not even close to ok. Drop the hyperbole, listen to reason.

"Jonah Goldberg at National Review put it well: "There was no way that anyone could say NR, the Weekly Standard, the Federalist Society, Bork, George Will and Krauthammer were somehow collectively of insufficient conservative authenticity..."

An appeal to authority. It's WORTHLESS in debate.

"it is a major sociological change if the arguments within conservatism are now going to be about "loyalty" to our people (trans: our Party) instead of loyalty to our ideas."

There is a point where critisism has left the realm of being constructive and has crossed the line into DESTRUCTIVE. That's where you're at.

"It is possible to be a Republican and actually favor conservative ideals like spending restraint,"

Sure it is. That has nothing to do with the your behavior. "Favoring spending restraint" doesn't mean you have to engage in self destructive behavior.

"and it is possible to believe that the President, for all we admire him, is fallible. "

THAT is a straw man! No one in this discussion made the argument that you couldn't! No? Prove me wrong! If you can't provide a quote (and you will not be able to), then this is simply more hyperbole.

"Pointing out areas where Republicans falter (like Miers"

Seems to be a matter of "honest disagreement" within the party, yet you'd treat those that disagree with her being a "faltering" as you would a Democrat. That's wrong.

"or like fiscal policy)"

We've reduced the growth of spending pretty much every year. No credit? Right! You've got an agenda, you must stick with the hyperbole!

"is not a character flaw,"

Sure it is.

"but simply honest,"

Makes you feel better to believe that your straw man was simple honesty, doesn't it?

"healthy intra-party debate."

Good! Let's debate. Or are you too set in your ways to admit error and alter behavior accordingly? We'll see!

"Let's stick to discussing policy differences "

And the way we go about changing the party from within!