<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We Are All Nutmeggers Now</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 03:31:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Heath</title>
		<link>http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/#comment-749</link>
		<dc:creator>Heath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/#comment-749</guid>
		<description>All further comments on this blog shall henceforth be referred to as "Comments Added In the Wake of the Jim Palmer Manifesto".</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All further comments on this blog shall henceforth be referred to as &#8220;Comments Added In the Wake of the Jim Palmer Manifesto&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Palmer</title>
		<link>http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/#comment-748</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Palmer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.everydayrepublican.com/2008/04/09/we-are-all-nutmeggers-now/#comment-748</guid>
		<description>"...the Democratic nominee will likely have more financial resources at their disposal than McCain."

Don't you ever wonder why?

"Make no mistake about it - McCain will make Connecticut competitive this fall."

We're in a far left state. How is McCain going to make Connecticut competitive except by moving to the left? Is he going to promise people more federal handouts?

There are so many people with a financial interest in expanding the government that it is now impossible to actually shrink the size of government. They are in the majority. On one side there's the Democrats promising $50 or $60 trillion in future entitlements and on the other there's the Republicans promising trillions to prop up the military industrial complex for the next hundred years by blowing up bridges in third world countries and then rebuilding them five times as the terrorists they attract keep knocking them down. And let's not forget the agricultural subsidies, the education subsidies, the pharmaceutical subsidies, and, of course, the home owner and bank bailout.

Like most people, I supported going in to Iraq initially. Back when the Administration said it would cost $50-200 Billion, largely financed by Iraqi oil revenue, and there would be no nation building - we would be in and out. Now estimates are north of $2 Trillion before it's all said and done and, whether it was bad intelligence or the WMD's were moved to Syria doesn't matter at this point, because the current Iraqi government doesn't want anything to do with them. I was fine with staying in Iraq until it had a government and Constitution. Done and done. Then Murtha goes on TV and cries for immediate withdrawal and the Republicans got suckered and took the most opposite position possible - send more troops.

There was no point to doing that other than the political one of trying to make the Democrats look soft on terrorism. Only an idiot would believe 5,000 Al-Qaida could topple an Iraqi government with 500,000 of its own troops. Now the Republicans are stuck because without any definable goals they can't back out without losing face. Most Americans see that at this point and that's why McCain is going to get slaughtered in this election. The only people who will be left voting for him are the ones that think it's better to keep throwing money at Iraq for an indeterminate period of time rather than flushing money down the drain on permanent socialized medicine. Them, and the idiots that have a fetish for the letter "r" with no further thought behind it.

But, wait - McCain has an ace up his sleeve! The economy is in trouble and McCain is a budget hawk! McCain says he will cut the spending by cutting out the $15 Billion of pork in the $3.1 Trillion budget by "making the authors famous" (all 520 of them). And, who says McCain doesn't know anything about economics? Besides McCain himself, I mean.

The funny part is, two months after Super Tuesday Ron Paul STILL has $1,840,000 more than McCain. It's a good thing the Republican base didn't nominate the one guy who was attracting new people to the party and could compete with the Democrats financially. Because then we'd have to stop rebuilding bridges in Iraq, and that would be bad...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230;the Democratic nominee will likely have more financial resources at their disposal than McCain.&#8221;</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t you ever wonder why?</p>
<p>&#8220;Make no mistake about it - McCain will make Connecticut competitive this fall.&#8221;</p>
<p>We&#8217;re in a far left state. How is McCain going to make Connecticut competitive except by moving to the left? Is he going to promise people more federal handouts?</p>
<p>There are so many people with a financial interest in expanding the government that it is now impossible to actually shrink the size of government. They are in the majority. On one side there&#8217;s the Democrats promising $50 or $60 trillion in future entitlements and on the other there&#8217;s the Republicans promising trillions to prop up the military industrial complex for the next hundred years by blowing up bridges in third world countries and then rebuilding them five times as the terrorists they attract keep knocking them down. And let&#8217;s not forget the agricultural subsidies, the education subsidies, the pharmaceutical subsidies, and, of course, the home owner and bank bailout.</p>
<p>Like most people, I supported going in to Iraq initially. Back when the Administration said it would cost $50-200 Billion, largely financed by Iraqi oil revenue, and there would be no nation building - we would be in and out. Now estimates are north of $2 Trillion before it&#8217;s all said and done and, whether it was bad intelligence or the WMD&#8217;s were moved to Syria doesn&#8217;t matter at this point, because the current Iraqi government doesn&#8217;t want anything to do with them. I was fine with staying in Iraq until it had a government and Constitution. Done and done. Then Murtha goes on TV and cries for immediate withdrawal and the Republicans got suckered and took the most opposite position possible - send more troops.</p>
<p>There was no point to doing that other than the political one of trying to make the Democrats look soft on terrorism. Only an idiot would believe 5,000 Al-Qaida could topple an Iraqi government with 500,000 of its own troops. Now the Republicans are stuck because without any definable goals they can&#8217;t back out without losing face. Most Americans see that at this point and that&#8217;s why McCain is going to get slaughtered in this election. The only people who will be left voting for him are the ones that think it&#8217;s better to keep throwing money at Iraq for an indeterminate period of time rather than flushing money down the drain on permanent socialized medicine. Them, and the idiots that have a fetish for the letter &#8220;r&#8221; with no further thought behind it.</p>
<p>But, wait - McCain has an ace up his sleeve! The economy is in trouble and McCain is a budget hawk! McCain says he will cut the spending by cutting out the $15 Billion of pork in the $3.1 Trillion budget by &#8220;making the authors famous&#8221; (all 520 of them). And, who says McCain doesn&#8217;t know anything about economics? Besides McCain himself, I mean.</p>
<p>The funny part is, two months after Super Tuesday Ron Paul STILL has $1,840,000 more than McCain. It&#8217;s a good thing the Republican base didn&#8217;t nominate the one guy who was attracting new people to the party and could compete with the Democrats financially. Because then we&#8217;d have to stop rebuilding bridges in Iraq, and that would be bad&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
