Michael Welch: Newt GinGRINCH? How 'Bout "Gecko Ginrich"?... wrote on May 23, 2007 11:35 AM:
" Is this the 'Gingrinch' that stopped the federal government in his 'Contract on America'? Is this the one with a personal tale of woe -- divorcing his wife when she was hospitalized with cancer so he could marry his mistress? Is this the mentor of Tom 'Show me the money!' DeLay? OH BOY! Democrats are rubbing their hands with unsuppressable delight for if Lady Hills is the nominee and all the bad about Billy is to resurrect 'Ginrich' would be the IDEAL GOPper candydandydate who would easily 'neutralize' the Clinton acidity. 'Bring him on!' as someone once said. (Hillary's nightly prayer: OH PLEASE NOMINATE HIM! OH LORD PLEASE!)... "
Craig R. wrote on May 21, 2007 7:03 PM:
" I personally dont care if the "income" tax is repealed, as it doesnt apply to me. Probably doesnt apply to you either. What I do care about is informing the average american of the Law as written vs. common interpretation. for that visit losthorizons dot com "
Screw this wrote on May 21, 2007 4:51 PM:
" ...vote for THEE BEST person to lead this country because he is a visionary that TALKS about issues and solutions instead of yelling and forcing ideology/agendas on everyone. Who is that person? NEWT GINGRINCH. If he decides to run, he is the hands-down BEST person for the job. Then Mr welch can more to some socialist state as American MOVES FORWARD! "
Michael Welch: Looks Like You Gotta "Hobby" Too!... wrote on May 21, 2007 11:41 AM:
" No it's a lot of fun to post here -- usually. There are of course 535 (uh 534 minus Ron Paul!) reasons why the income tax will never be repealed but working for it can also be a great (and long-lasting!) hobby -- like working for a socialist America! I certainly don't mind the idea of a less expensive, more efficient government but I would like to see the revenue spent on education, health care, increased social security etc. and all those quasi- and semi-'socialist' programs folks dreamed of waaayyy back in 1965 -- before the feds wasted so much money and effort on yet another unneeded botched war. But I like Paul's challenge to this presently corrupt and ideologically bankrupt GOP -- I SINCERELY wish him well!... "
Michael Welch should find a new hobby wrote on May 21, 2007 12:43 AM:
" good article Ken
to the fair tax advocate- Getting rid of the "income" tax should be done, however there is no need to replace it with anything. There are already sufficent powers of taxation within the constitution to make the government run, and they come with some accountability. To automatically think the government needs unlimited amounts of money to do with as they please is contrary to constitutional limitations on government. For some very interesting info on taxes google losthorizons or cracking the code.
Craig R. "
Michael Welch: Paul: "Life" Of The Party!... wrote on May 19, 2007 11:57 AM:
" I heard a story this Saturday morn on NPR about how the Ron Paulists are prolific on blogs and straining the decayed neo-con ideology of this present Republican party. Paul in the last GOPper presidential debate even had the guts to note that the US had been bombing Iraq and other Muslim places throughout the '90s so 9-11 shouldn't have been such a 'surprise.' That's a refreshing thought -- a first NEW thought in years -- amid REPUBLICANS. I think the libertarian leave-me-alone-to-make-money Paulists are as much in a dream land as any retro-socialist but I admire their willingness to inject 'life' into a party with such a desiccated disappointing presidency to deal with. Buenos suerte! as they say 'out west'... "
Michael Welch: Sure You're Busy -- No Sweat... wrote on May 18, 2007 11:43 AM:
" I'm hardly expecting you to respond at my bidding(!) but I appreciate your taking the time. Paul of course is no more likely to become president than the totally unknown (even to me) candidate(s) of the remnants of 'American socialism' plus those fragments of 'Trotskyites' and 'neo-Stalinists' who still vigorously bicker within their insular worlds. 'Refuting' socialism at this time is a bit like now reading Augustine refuting the Olympian and Greco-Roman local gods in A's 'City of God' -- i. e. it's quaint and intermittently interesting historically. I just hope for an end to the awful war and a start at a national health care system -- we agree on the first but not on the second; still I personally would vote 'Paul' before any other REPUBLICAN now in the race... "
Ken Van Doren wrote on May 18, 2007 8:27 AM:
" Re: Your comment that my absence ;means we have cleared things up.
On issues of foreign policy and hypocrisy of many Republicans, I suspect we agree more than disagree. However, I have a life, a business, several social and political commitments, not the least of which is seeing Ron Paul elected, and other boards that I visit. I always find your posts amusing, even when I do not agree with them. Perhaps your goal is to get people to think?
An excellent refutation of the fallacies of socialism may be found in Bastiat's "the Law." http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Sianara "
Michael Welch: Falwell And Reagan: Saul And David?... wrote on May 17, 2007 12:03 PM:
" Actually Gingrich is a 'solution' to any Democratic doubt that the party will retake the presidency in '08. And yes the uh 'party of Lincoln' did decide in the late '60s under the er ever 'pragmatic' Dickster Nix to exploit southern racism and warriorism to trounce the 'party of Rebellion' at last. Falwell was actually a political genius of sorts whose 'Moral Majority' encompassed fundamentalist Baptists, hyper-independent Pentecostals, staid Lutherans, traditional Catholics and even Mormons into an anti-secular 'umbrella group' that delivered to non-church-going divorced formerly pro-abortion rights Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan its abiding allegiance -- though by the end of his presidency some (e. g. Richard Viguerie) saw they'd been 'had'... "
Michael Welch: I'm Not Responsible For YOUR Ignorance... wrote on May 17, 2007 11:54 AM:
" Michael Welch is here because he has something to say; the only thing you seem to have to say is that you don't like Michael Welch 'here.' But why not challenge his perceptions if you disagree? Why whine and carp and sulk about it? If you 'don't understand' or like Al Gonzalez 'can't recall' your last American history class why is that Michael Welch's problem? Want to get into the action? Post an 'idea' that isn't the class clown's last refuge from actually having to READ the lesson... "
solution wrote on May 17, 2007 9:59 AM:
" Newt Gingrinch in 2008! "
A question... wrote on May 17, 2007 9:56 AM:
" ...how did this become www.michaelwelchpoliticalindoctrinationsite.com? "
Damn straight wrote on May 16, 2007 8:33 PM:
" After Watergate and the coming of Reagan, the Republican party was taken over almost lock stock and barrel by the bible thumping Dixiecrats. The only real difference in their platforms is the Dixiecrats publicly supported segregation by government decree. The few moderate and progressive Republicans left from the Northeast, Midwest and West remain loyal Republican with false hopes they'll win their party back. They might as well whistle Dixie! "
Michael Welch: Jerry Falwell -- The Fallen "Saul"?... wrote on May 16, 2007 12:08 PM:
" ('Stormy weather' on this web site today so if this post is a repeat I apologize.) I assume since Van Doren's not responded we've cleared things up? By the way I note that all the debating Repub candidates for prez last evening made obeisance to Jerry Falwell, deceased since yesterday, which illustrates well my contention that fundamentalist Christians are in fact the only actual 'popular' base the party has. It does attract armchair warriors, vicarious war lovers but they've diminished since their beloved war(s) has gone bad. Repubs however have huge money resources from the wealthiest (who NEVER 'fight' BUT 'vicariously') so fear not Big Government GOPpers: you can still 'win' with enough dough to cheat!... "
Michael Welch: Jerry Falwell -- The Fallen Saul?... wrote on May 16, 2007 11:48 AM:
" No response from Van Doren? Does that mean we understand each other; perhaps you meant to reply to the other of my critics below? I note today by the way that the Repub candidates for prez all gave obeisance to the 'sacred' memory of Jerry Falwell, deceased since yesterday, which illustrates aptly my sense that the only true 'popular' base of the party is now the fundamentalists and perhaps the hyper-armchair 'warriors' (who don't post here very much since the war went bad on them). The GOP is powerful of course because the richest support it and buy its elections -- for prez especially as in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio and New Mexico in 2004. Repubs can always 'win' you see -- by stealing -- so their nomination is still worth the canker er candle... "
Michael Welch: Democrats... wrote on May 15, 2007 11:59 AM:
" The Demos are awash in the backwaters of Vietnam still; i. e. here was a party that by the mid-1960s championed 'Negro' civil rights (after being pushed into it by King et. al.!) and then proposed a renewed 'New Deal' called 'the Great Society' which had beautiful socialist possibilities (MY prejudice!) but wrecked on yet another unnecessary and botched war. The party also split over THAT war but the 'socialistic' McGovern faction went down to an humiliating defeat in 1972 and ever since the Demos have never 'dared eat a peach' re: the 'Great Society' visionaries. It's the tepid party, neither 'hot' nor 'cold' -- although this current 'Vietnam' is heating it up considerably at last... "
Michael Welch: Conservatisn Etc. (Part Two...) wrote on May 15, 2007 11:49 AM:
" As for Goldwater (from my present state of AZ) he was more akin to Joe McCarthy )from my former state of Wis). That is, he was a (generally) more sober and 'reasonable' anti-commie agitator who fell in love with military toys and never met a war he didn't want to 'win' at whatever price -- e. g. 'low-yield' nukes in Korea and Vietnam. The Repubs after the estimable Bob Taft died suddenly in '53 quickly split between Eisenhower 'moderates' and raw-meat McCarthy types. Fear of the reds post-1989 had to become fear of the 'ragheads,' i. e. militant Muslims, terrorism et. al. The Republicans are today dominated by religious right, big business cartels and defense contractors and are certainly NOT very responsive (but rhetorically) to the local business guy down the block... "
Michael Welch: Conservatism In US Politics Since 1940 (Part One...) wrote on May 15, 2007 11:37 AM:
" I don't really disagree here; I'm not sure why you're making a disagreement -- however let's talk sure: if you're at all familiar with my posts I'm not a partisan; MY 'party' is moribund (the 'old' Socialist party, see below) and I pick on Democrats as well. Yeah I think the present Republican party is a fraud; it's a big government party that channels its 'welfare' to the wealthiest via tax cuts and leaves 'warfare' for the ordinary shmoes; like Reagan it cares not a whit for a balanced budget. (Clinton in fact was 'the best REPUBLICAN president since Coolidge' as a La Crosse Democratic party chair remarked. Hyperbole of course but funny...) "
Ken Van Doren wrote on May 14, 2007 4:25 PM:
" Not sure who misread whom, but to clarify: It would be a mistake to let this argument devolve into Democrat vs. Republican rhetoric. Both Goldwater and especially Reagan I believe were essentially 2 candidates; one of rhetoric (for the most part, good, embracing smaller government and individual rights) and the other of reality. Reagan NEVER proposed a balanced budget, and had more tax increases than reductions. Clinton had us in 28 wars om 8 yrs, vs. 22 during Reagan/Bush I. The current gang of Kritols, Rove Perle, Wolfowitz etc., the Neocon Terrorists, I consider to be just as dangerous to our liberties as any foreign terrorists. Of Dem candidates for Pres, only Kucinich opposed the Iraq war from the getgo. "
Michael Welch: Again You've Misread Me???... wrote on May 14, 2007 11:42 AM:
" I don't exactly understand -- is this comment FROM Van Doren? If so you're (surprisingly) not reading my text carefully at all. I wrote precisely that the current 'Republican party = BIG WAR GOVERNMENT' (just look below huh? look!) not more 'freedom.' I bemoaned the descent of conservatism in the GOP from the ideals of community independence and small(er) government dear to those former party leaders like Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft into the militaristic authoritarian big-spending so-called 'conservatism' of the lates Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. Paul is running as a Repub in order to challenge this 'neo'-conservatism -- and I said 'Good!' though I am not a libertarian GOPper... "
Ken Van Doren wrote on May 14, 2007 8:56 AM:
" RE: W/o God or Goldwater.
" Are you serious? Republicans = more freedom? I have 2 words for you: Patriot Act. "
Your comment on freedom-that certainly is not what I was implying. For those of us who believe in individual rights and the necessity of limits on government and checks and balances-now mostly a thing of the past-to protect us from government abuse, neither party is a perfect fit. Patriot Act? Much of it was written by Clinton staffers and rejected by Republicans during Clinon's years. PATRIOT ACT I and II, the Military Commissions Act, Ron Paul was about the only one to vote against all 3. Sadly, both major parties have contributed mightily to the decline of our liberties and our economy. Ron Paul stands virtually alone in Congress in voting to protect what is left. "
Michael Welch: MY Pollyticks: Vote For Thomas! An' Upton Sinclair!?... wrote on May 11, 2007 1:05 PM:
" By the way while I certainly prefer an 'Hooverian-Taftian-Paulian' Republicanism to the Truman Republicans we've had for a generation I myself am a oh a 'Norman Thomas-Michael Harrington American socialist' which is practically like saying I'm a Samarian Jew who wants worship at Mount Gerizim instead of at the temple in Jerusalem -- time's passed me by you see. Ron Paul will not of course be chosen the GOPpish nominee this year or any year we can assume but the Bushite big government party's cooked with corruption and reeks with a lost war. Rudy Guiliani the 'neo-liberal' GOPper, the new Rockefeller ('Hiya fella!') may likely be the present GOP's lost/last hope?... "
Michael Welch: You Obviously Don't Know Even Conservative History... wrote on May 10, 2007 11:35 AM:
" Somebody can't read. I said that IF there are finally a considerable number of Republicans against the present GARGANTUAN war-tax cut deficits of the current BIG government run by these Bushite so-called 'neo-conservatives' THEN there is at least some hope for a return to the older tradition of 'small(er)' government championed by a generation most present GOPpers have never heard of, namely that of Herbert Hoover and Robert Taft. Ron Paul HAS 'heard' of them and moreover he KNOWS that BOTH Barry Goldwater AND Ronald Reagan were BIG GOVERNMENT REPUBS and the Bushes pere et fils their incompetent successors. I said NOTHING about Democrats -- but I would if you asked!... "
RE: Without God or Goldwater wrote on May 10, 2007 8:10 AM:
" Are you serious? Republicans = more freedom? I have 2 words for you: Patriot Act. No, any government in general means less freedom. They don't give you any freedoms, they take them away. I'm pretty sure we would all be able to do what we wanted if there wasn't such a constrictive government. "
formerStateEmployee wrote on May 10, 2007 7:54 AM:
" Republicans NO LONGER are about "REDUCED government, LESS taxes, and MORE individual freedom..." They've become just like Democrats in expanding the imperial Federal Gov't. Examples--"No Child Left Behind" "Medicare part D" and always the nortorious "pork" in almost all their spending bills...the "bridge to nowhere" anybody??? c'mon, the republicans are just as bad as the democrats these days. What went wrong is "career politicians" running everything now. "
to Michael Welch: wrote on May 9, 2007 2:51 PM:
" Your ideology is either wrong or simply dillusional. Republicans = REDUCED government, LESS taxes, and MORE individual freedom with individuals being able to keep what they earn to better themselves INDEPENDENT of government aid. In sharp contrast, it's radical democrats that = LESS individual freedom, INCREASED regulations, INCREASED licenses, INCREASED fees, and INCREASED taxes that come from all the "necessary" programs that they demand with the ensuing INCREASED incidence of crawling to the government because of economic difficulty. More people are on the side of "doing it themselves" than "let the government provide for me"! "
formerStateEmployee wrote on May 8, 2007 12:23 PM:
" We need to implement the FairTax. Go read "The FairTax" book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. An excellent read. "
Michael Welch: Without God Or Goldwater --... wrote on May 8, 2007 11:44 AM:
" By the way GOPper anti-government guy US Rep. Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Iraq war and (see the article above) speaks of the 'WARfare-welfare' state. If a rejection of the Bushite form of militarized federalism subordinated to an emperor-like president is being embraced by a libertarian conservative movement then there's indeed some good to come of it. Republicans = big WAR government is the current equation; some folks are apparently becoming less galvanized by the old Barry Goldwater model and more attracted to the older Robert Taft one. Stay tuned! as Ronnie Reagan would say... "
Excellent article! wrote on May 8, 2007 5:47 AM:
" We have intelligent,caring people among us who see "needs" within the community. But when every new idea becomes an agenda that is deemed "necessary", we have added new layers to an already bloated government bureacracy. And each new layer means MORE TAXES that overburdens the average person trying to "stay afloat". It is absurd, at best, to falaciously argue that because government helps in natural diasters, we must have government provide unlimited services in unlimited situations as Welch implies. Because now we have the advent of "smart growth" that will--in addition to the tax burden--will take away our say in what we own. STOP THE INSANITY.... "
formerStateEmployee wrote on May 7, 2007 3:11 PM:
" The point is, it's not the government's job to provide those services. The government's job is to defend us (as explained in the editorial). If the gov't stole less of our money, we could individualy decide if we wanted to help tornado/hurricane "victims." Americans have ALWAYS shown support to victims in these cases-we ALWAYS will. "
Michael Welch: Oh The Ayn Randian Dreams! (SO SUPERIOR!?...) wrote on May 7, 2007 11:45 AM:
" If someone wants to glory in his being 'dumb' then of course he can! (See below.) No uh 'big government' will stop him. And we can try to live in a legendary America in which we fend for ourselves (social security? who needs it!), pay our medical bills ourselves (medicare? get rid of it!) and pretend we will still get to be 'king of the hill; top of the heap!' because of our innate abilities and superiority to the uh 'masses.' Good luck! But many of us find we're damn grateful for a society that helps out -- I bet they're looking for a bit of 'big government' today in devastated what WAS Greenburg, Kansas? YOU don't 'need' it? Well -- not YET... "
Steve Gores: Citizens for Responsible Gov't -Nicely written! wrote on May 7, 2007 11:26 AM:
" Mr. Van Doren expresses the conservative viewpoint on government spending and taxation very eloquently in this opinion piece. What liberals never seem to understand is that some taxpayer at some level always is behind every government program and grant created by "visionary" politicians like Jim Doyle, Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton. There is no such thing as "free" government money- it all came from private individuals at some point. Spend it prudently is all we would ask and don't ask for any more than you absolutely need. Taxes and spending in this country and especially Wisconsin need to be constantly scrutinized for "value added" and unintended negative economic consequences. Otherwise government should probably stay out of it. Thank you so much Ken for writing this- I enjoyed your critique immensely. "
How much is enough? wrote on May 7, 2007 10:09 AM:
" Look in your own backyard. We have a County Administrator who is paid $133k per year with all the benefits/trimmings, Mr. O'Malley. He just was on 'tour?' radio, local TV, and PBS. He was talking up his new huge money generating, money maker, the 'RAFFLE". Now we see that they sold a faction of the tickets printed, half of the proceeds went to prizes, and printing cost, and we are supposed to believe that it virtually marketed, sold, managed, and ran by itself? I would label this as "enough"! "
JS wrote on May 7, 2007 12:23 AM:
" This is great, I could not have said it better myself. "
libertarianChristians.org wrote on May 6, 2007 7:36 PM:
" It is impossible to post an intelligent reply in under 150 words. "
chris wrote on May 6, 2007 7:35 PM:
" actually "let me guess" clinton would be as bad as bush. I suggest ya look up ron paul issues at ronpaul2008.com. See what ya think, if ya like what you see spread the word. "
Janelle wrote on May 6, 2007 6:42 PM:
" Thanks for the wake up. I'm sending this to everyone. "
i just waiting for voodoo and mike w. wrote on May 6, 2007 4:38 PM:
" to splain to us unread masses how it all works. See, cuz we uns doan haf no edukashun liken dem folks. I here tell voodoo done went to annapolis and mista welsh, well he just knows cuz he reads words da right way. {THIS BIT OF SARCASM IS EXACTLY HOW THOSE IN GOVERNMENT THINK, "KEEP THE MASSES CONFUSED AND THINKING THEY NEED US, THEN WHEN THEY THINK THEY NEED US, WE CHARGE THEM THROUGH TAXES."} "
Yomamma wrote on May 6, 2007 12:27 PM:
" I couldn't have said it better myself...
Bravo! "
gil knappmiller wrote on May 6, 2007 12:12 PM:
" --grat article-- "
actually it's our fault. wrote on May 6, 2007 10:55 AM:
" We let it get this way.
It's been going on for 100 years now.
How much is too much? "
actually it's our fault. wrote on May 6, 2007 10:54 AM:
" We let it get this way.
It's been going on for 100 years now.
how much is too much? "
Let me guess.... wrote on May 6, 2007 8:45 AM:
" It's all Bush's fault. If America just get's back to electing a Clinton, all these problems will be fixed. Haliburton will be destroyed for offering jobs and infilstructure where no one else would. Chenney and Bush can be brought up on charges and billions of dollars and years of time can be spent trying to toss them into jail. Our troops can be withdrawn from Iraq, so that they can be redeployed to defend our ally Saudia Arabia from Iran, but of course sanctions always defeats dictators so our troops will really just be window dressing. The Missle defense system can be scrapped because our long time friends, Russia and North Korea don't like America being stronger then them. Wow! The future looks brighter with Democrats already. "