Thought Experiment:
It’s kind of late out here in God’s Country, but a thought just came across my mind. Let’s play a What If game:
Game One
If you were a member of Congress, which choice would you make:
1) Vote for a bill that increases the budgets of the 9 outstanding departments by 8%, or
2) Vote against that bill, and instead for a continuing resolution that would freeze these budgets at last year’s level.
Game Two
If you were a newly-inaugurated president with approval ratings around 60% who had campaigned on fiscal responsibility and an end to earmarks, and having promised to go “line-by-line” through the budget eliminating waste, and a Congress, whose approval ratings are well below freezing sent you a bill that increased the budgets of these departments by 8%, which choice would you make:
1) Sign the bill and say that it’s “last year’s business”, or
2) Veto the bill and insist the Congress write a budget more in line with your campaign promises, or better yet, demand they pass a continuing resolution freezing the budget at last year’s level.
Oh, and let’s also say that for either scenario, you’re a “responsible leader” who wouldn’t dream of changing the subject, or deflect the issue that it’s your decision to make, not some weird fault of the last guy (as badly as you may think of him).
Just a little late-night fun.
-Nick (Colorado Patriot) from HQ
105 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Easy. For both games you choose Option #3 and focus attention on Rush Limbaugh, so those ignorant assholes who were stupid enough to vote for you, don’t pay attention to your spending more money.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 10, 2009 @ 5:19 am - March 10, 2009
I heard an idiot congresswoman on the radio today saying, “We inherited a trillion dollar deficit.” No, you stupid git. You were in Congress when the budget was passed. You didn’t inherit that deficit, you created it.
Why do we let them get away with these lies?
My answer: None of the above. Start over. Begin by simplifying the tax code from 66,000+ pages down to a lean 100 pages. Announce a sunset for all Federal Agencies and programs. New programs will be created to replace those that perform worthwhile functions. Worthless programs will be discontinued.
That’s my program.
Comment by V the K — March 10, 2009 @ 8:40 am - March 10, 2009
Here’s the actual thought experiment going through Obama’s head:
“Wow–I did it! I figured out what liberals want black people to be, and they bought it! They actually elected me President. So–here’s my big office. What’s the dress code? Do I wear a badge? Look at all these papers. I’m supposed to sign things and make a big speech about it, something about hope and change. Some big guy from England is coming. I’m supposed to get him something. I never give gifts–not even to my kids at Christmas. What should I get him? Sure, a box of DVDs! Those Brits like movies don’t they? Crap, there’s still that economy thing. What do I know about the economy? Oh, well, sign something or that Pelosi will just nag, nag, nag. I wonder if Joe wants to play some golf. . .”
Comment by Ashpenaz — March 10, 2009 @ 9:53 am - March 10, 2009
#2: “I heard an idiot congresswoman on the radio today saying, “We inherited a trillion dollar deficit.†No, you stupid git. You were in Congress when the budget was passed. You didn’t inherit that deficit, you created it.”
Yes, she created it. It’s her kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, etc. that get to inherit it.
Comment by Sean A — March 10, 2009 @ 11:16 am - March 10, 2009
CP has described what would be the CHANGE, the not business as usual that most people were voting for in the last election. Sadly Obamateleprompter is just another pol.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 10, 2009 @ 11:20 am - March 10, 2009
It’s amusing to see a movement that campaigned exclusively against Obama with frivolous nonsense about his pastor and his citizenship and his middle name now invoking his campaign promises.
Also, no one really cares what conservatives or Republicans have to say about fiscal responsibility. You guys don’t have the credibility to define what that phrase means anymore.
Comment by Levi — March 10, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 10, 2009
Meanwhile, Queen Nancy treats the USAF like her own personal private jet service.
Comment by V the K — March 10, 2009 @ 1:52 pm - March 10, 2009
It’s amusing to see a movement that campaigned exclusively against Obama with frivolous nonsense about his pastor and his citizenship and his middle name now invoking his campaign promises.
It’s even more amusing to watch liberals twist themselves into desperate sweaty pretzels to explain why their Obamamessiah is not only ignoring his campaign promises, but doing quite the opposite.
The reason that so-called “frivolous nonsense” was brought up, Levi, was because it demonstrated that Obama was a serial liar who would say and do anything to be elected. You fell for it, and now, instead of being a man and admitting that you believed Obama’s lies, are now trying to blame conservatives for your gullibility.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - March 10, 2009
Also, no one really cares what conservatives or Republicans have to say about fiscal responsibility. You guys don’t have the credibility to define what that phrase means anymore.
Or so hopes the supporter of tax cheats who is now trying to argue that half-trillion-dollar deficits were bad, but two-trillion deficits are good.
Which is it, silly Levi? Are deficits bad, or are they only bad the smaller that they are?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - March 10, 2009
The “It’s okay when Democrats do it” act is getting a mite stale.
Comment by V the K — March 10, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - March 10, 2009
Deficits aren’t always bad or always good. Bush’s were bad because they’ve clearly contributed greatly to the disasters we currently find ourselves in, and it remains to be seen whether or not Obama’s will be good. It certainly seems to me that Obama’s spending should be more helpful to the country than Bush’s giveaways to pharmaceutical companies and the super-rich, but I have my concerns about Obama’s priorities as well.
And again, the big thing here is that Democrats don’t campaign by promising the conservatives’ idealized version of fiscal responsibility that involves nothing more than tax cuts and reduced spending. Obama did talk about fiscal responsibility during the campaign, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the type that you guys are peddling. Spending and fiscal responsibility aren’t mutually exclusive so long as what you’re spending the money on is a good investment for the country. Bottom line: you guys don’t own that phrase or its definition, especially with the way you ran things over the past decade.
Comment by Levi — March 10, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - March 10, 2009
Ooh! Ooh! I know! I would eat lots of pork and give all the members of Congress a raise!!
Comment by AirborneVet — March 10, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - March 10, 2009
Obama did talk about fiscal responsibility during the campaign, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the type that you guys are peddling.
Chairman Zero’s definition includes quadrupling the Federal Deficit his first year, establishing massive new entitlements, enacting crippling and unnecessary cap-and-trade regulations, and widening the deficit by $8.4 Trillion by the 2019 … more *if* economic growth fails to meet his sunny projections.
It’s inconsistent to whine about the cost of Bush’s prescription drug plan and then cheer for Chairman Zero’s Universal Health Care. But then again, “deficits are okay when Democrats run them, no matter how big they are.”
Comment by V the K — March 10, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - March 10, 2009
Chairman Zero’s definition includes quadrupling the Federal Deficit his first year, establishing massive new entitlements, enacting crippling and unnecessary cap-and-trade regulations, and widening the deficit by $8.4 Trillion by the 2019 … more *if* economic growth fails to meet his sunny projections.
It’s inconsistent to whine about the cost of Bush’s prescription drug plan and then cheer for Chairman Zero’s Universal Health Care. But then again, “deficits are okay when Democrats run them, no matter how big they are.â€
No it isn’t. Bush’s drug plan didn’t make any sense. It was an absolute waste of public resources. Universal health care would not be a waste, in my opinion. It’s possible for liberals to criticize excessive and pointless spending without them having to absolutely commit to the idea that all spending is bad. It’s not as black and white as you’d like it to be.
Comment by Levi — March 10, 2009 @ 4:06 pm - March 10, 2009
Levi, I think we understand perfectly. For Bush to waste money was wrong because he’s a Republican. For Obama to waste vastly larger sums of money is okay because he’s a Democrat.
Which is why you whine about “Cheney’s pals” allegedly making money from supplying soldiers in Iraq, but are delighted at the payoffs to Obama’s community organizer buddies in the stimulus.
Comment by V the K — March 10, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - March 10, 2009
Is that why he threw his campaign promises of “bipartisanship” in the crappeer once he got in?
It made enough sense for veterans to drop their VA and go with Medicare because they could get medications covered that the VA didn’t. But then, to the left, they’re poor, stupid, ignorant wretches in the first place.
Actually, it is which is why liberals have to pretend it’s a nice, hazy shade of grey to make themselves feel better.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 10, 2009 @ 6:35 pm - March 10, 2009
Of course not because nothing would get spent. People will either die before they can get treated or get too sick for anything to be done. Lotsa savings there.
Notice there’s no talk about universal burial. No plans to help cover the high cost of planting folks in the ground. THAT would be expensive.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 10, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - March 10, 2009
Nick, as a fiscal conservative on Game 1 I’d vote against the earmarks, support any amendments that gutted the 3-4% of the Omnibus bill that are classified as earmarks, strip out any funds going to Congressional districts where the Congressman is no longer serving… after that, if those efforts did not succeed, I’d vote the bill down and head home to explain why we’d just have to “limp along” with all the pork in the Democrat 2009 Spending Stimulus bill.
On Game 2 as President, I’d risk alienating NancyPelosi and the HouseDems, stand on campaign promise I made to go line by line and eliminate abuse, waste on my watch, then I’d veto the Omnibus bill, direct the House & Senate to go back to work and get a real budget supplemental without earmarks… even tho’ some of those earmarks are mine.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - March 10, 2009
#16: “Actually, it is which is why liberals have to pretend it’s a nice, hazy shade of grey to make themselves feel better.”
Well, that, and the fact that it means they never have to commit to a principle and stick with it. That’s why every phrase Levi types is like this: “Obama did talk about fiscal responsibility during the campaign, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the type that you guys are peddling. ”
Exactly, Levi. Obama is peddling the “irresponsible” variety of “fiscal responsibility.” How convenient it must be to be unrestrained by standards, principles, and intellectual honesty. There’s good deficit spending and bad deficit spending. There’s good civil unions and bad civil unions. Apparently, there’s “good” everything and “bad” everything and Levi thinks it makes him appear reasonable to reserve the right to say “good” or “bad” as if some kind of brilliant analysis has taken place. It makes me laugh.
Comment by Sean A — March 10, 2009 @ 10:59 pm - March 10, 2009
Another thought experiment: If Chairman Zero had run on a platform of quadrupling the Deficit his first month in office, appointing a tax cheat to the Treasury Department, and insulting American allies while making nice with Cuba, Syria and Iran… is it possible the election would have had a different outcome?
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 7:52 am - March 11, 2009
V, that’s a much easier Thought Experiment to answer.
No, the election wouldn’t have turned out differently because those angry, disgruntled, piss-in-their-boots soc-cons who sat out the election (cough, cough, insert your name and a few other wailing commenters in GP threads) couldn’t be convinced to vote for McCain even when Nancy Reagan invoked the spirit of her husband, Ronald the Conservative Crusader, on John McCain’s behalf.
Refresher course for the spiteful spectrum:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a28Qo7Cl8dHg&refer=home
Nope, the 08 election wouldn’t have turned out differently because those disgruntled white soc-cons knew what they were doing, did it with a spiteful conviction usually saved for religious conversions and willfully turned the entire federal govt –including the Courts– to the farLeft.
But don’t let those facts get in the way of the usual bitchfest about the evil “Chairman Zero” and the consequences of electing a farLeft liberal as president.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 8:38 am - March 11, 2009
What M&M is saying, really, is that John McLandslide was such a thoroughly awful candidate, that he probably would have lost even if the public had been honestly informed about Obama’s plans. On that point, I agree. McLandslide squandered any credibility as a deficit hawk when he broke from his campaign to vote for the TARP bailout.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 8:50 am - March 11, 2009
What is ironic is that John McLandslide was exactly the candidate the Republican elites wanted: a bi-partisan moderate who always compromises with Democrats and offers nothing to the “oogedy-boogedy” people on the right. That strategy worked out real well, didn’t it? Arnold “the Taxinator” Schwarzeneggar was cut from the same cloth and look how that turned out. Ditto George Pataki. It turns out most of those ’socially liberal/fiscally conservative’ Republicans aren’t really that fiscally conservative either.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 8:54 am - March 11, 2009
Has MM has developed rusty syndrome? It also reminds me of something GPW once said. Or to put it another way: Who’s really the spiteful one, in the thread so far? Heh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 9:17 am - March 11, 2009
Good News: The Stimulus package is working.
Bad News: It’s the Chinese Stimulus package.
Tax cuts, my friends. That’s how you stimulate an economy.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 9:20 am - March 11, 2009
V spins away another line “What M&M is saying, really, is that John McLandslide was such a thoroughly awful candidate, that he probably would have lost even if the public had been honestly informed about Obama’s plans.”
Not at all, V –but I can see how your tinfoil hat may be a little too tight and interrupting all reception of the reality waves. There’s lots of blame going around for the 08 election losses but you were the politically suicidal thrumpet who argued here for soc-cons to stay home –but like a good angry white cynic, you’re more inclined to point the finger at everyone else save yourself.
You asked if the election would have turned out differently if Obama’s true colors and agenda had been exposed?
The asnwer was No.
I said “Nope, the 08 election wouldn’t have turned out differently because those disgruntled white soc-cons knew what they were doing, did it with a spiteful conviction usually saved for religious conversions and willfully turned the entire federal govt –including the Courts– to the farLeft.”
Whether you toss out McLandslide or Rudy McRomney or McAmnesty… it still doesn’t change the simple, incontrovertible fact that your team failed America, help put Obama in power and turned the entire federal govt over to the farLeft… maybe for 4 yrs, maybe for 8 yrs or more. It’s probably the crowning achievement of the spite spectrum… and may have sealed the fate of the conservative movement like a coffin in a grave vault.
Look at the bright side, you get to pitch a bitch every time Obama does something now and you don’t have to look so disloyal, disgruntled and boots full of piss. That’s gotta be making your various blogs traffic-happy, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:20 am - March 11, 2009
ILC, you never fail to play the same games over and over. It’s tedious.
Of course, others here have pointed the same about you… American Elephant being the most recent. You’re tedious, ILC. A one note orchestra.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:23 am - March 11, 2009
To summarize: MM hates social conservatives. MM – you do understand that your name-calling buddy AE is a social conservative, right?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 9:24 am - March 11, 2009
And if it’s so tedious, MM, then why don’t you simply leave? You know, before another blog has to ban you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 9:25 am - March 11, 2009
(sorry, this link is better: http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31620.html#19776)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 9:27 am - March 11, 2009
V offers: “What is ironic is that John McLandslide was exactly the candidate the Republican elites wanted: a bi-partisan moderate who always compromises with Democrats and offers nothing to the “oogedy-boogedy†people on the right.”
Seems kind of strange that, if by “people on the right” you mean conservatives, so many REAL conservatives –not your brand of angry white cynic soc-con– endorsed McCain and wanted his campaign to succeed… except, maybe, for your God-on-Earth RushBlow.
He really wanted McCain to fail so that he, and others like you and ILC, would have something to keep bitching about.
You’ve grown into an almost Alice-in-Wonderland or Dorothy in Oz alternate universe, V. Cynic sells but it makes for lousy governance.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:28 am - March 11, 2009
As something of a social liberal, I disagree with V and with Mr. Limbaugh on many points. And I’ve been honest about my disagreements on many occasions (e.g., with V, NDT, TL, TGC, Peter, heliotrope, etc.).
BUT, as a real fiscal conservative – and as a human being who cares about honestly and integrity – I will gladly stand with those social conservatives over MM, or gladly be lumped with them by MM. It’s a badge of honor. So, thanks dude!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 9:34 am - March 11, 2009
I think the “Alice in Wonderland” people are those who inhabit a fantasy realm in which John McLandslide was an appealing candidate… or a conservative.
Besides which, I thought the elites theory was that Johnny McLandslide didn’t need any of those “oogedy-boogedy” people to vote for him because of all the moderates and Democrats who would flock to a moderate Republican candidate who wasn’t tied to the Religious Right?
Didn’t work out so well, did it?
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 9:34 am - March 11, 2009
I’m not sure who those elites are V? But I know your anti-elite rants in the past have usually been without merit, basis or standing. Are these those blue-blooded BackBay Beacon Hill Bostonians like Elliot Richardson? Cause he’s been dead for a bit.
And after a week of responsible GOPers telling RushBlow he’s wrong and AnnieGetUrGunsCoulter she’s wrong… the farRight is beginning to get a bad rep as being a little more than land awash with nutcases outstep with America and reality and… now the GOP.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:51 am - March 11, 2009
Sorry ILC, my petty little friend, I posted this in the wrong thread… I didn’t want you to think you were being ignored.
“ILC, yes, you’ve always been tedious. American Elephant noted so. By the way, the webmasters at IndieGayForum reversed Mike Airhart’s unilateral move when they discovered that 4 trolls at their site were posting under my name. But don’t let reality get in YOUR special way of pursuing a spiteful approach… it’s all about you.”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:55 am - March 11, 2009
Well, MM, no one can deny that you name-call. Congratulations on being a role-model and inspiration for the Internet’s name-calling, sock-puppeting trolls. What an accomplishment.
And I do hope the GayPatriot blog owners never have to threaten you with a ban, again. (You can’t deny that that happened.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:02 am - March 11, 2009
Oh, and P.S. – Kindly provide a citation (a link) for IGF un-banning you. (As I did, for when they banned you.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:04 am - March 11, 2009
Also – Kindly state the terms and conditions under which IGF un-banned you. Your vast, lengthy history of name-calling is, again, undeniable. I would imagine that – taking your word that your un-banning was real, or assuming you do come up with a citation for it – they chastised you (asked you to rein it in), nonetheless.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:07 am - March 11, 2009
V offers: “I think the “Alice in Wonderland†people are those who inhabit a fantasy realm in which John McLandslide was an appealing candidate… or a conservative.”
Nice V, now you make fun of Nancy Reagan because she thought McCain was a conservative? Have you no shame?
Yeah, there were lots of fellow-conservatives –REAL conservatives– who endorsed McCain because he was a conservative. Like your posterboi for angry white males from the ReligiousRight, Gary Bauer. Sam Brownback for another. How about co-founder of the Federalist Society Steve Calabresi? How about Conservative legal scholar and former Solicitor General Charles Fried?
Instructional for you should be Pres Bush 41’s comments about McCain and the “not pure enuff, not conservative enuff” nonsense you were claptrapping here before the election… “At this critical time in history … the United States of America cannot be allowed to falter… I believe now is the right time for me to help John in his effort to start building the broad-based coalition it’ll take for our conservative values to carry the White House this fall”.
Of course, to guys like you, Bush 41 is probably “Ford lite” or a RINO.
Hey, the central point I’m trying to make is that soc-cons shot themselves in the foot on Election Day and turned over the federal govt to the farLeft and Obama. You can’t see that for all the forests you’ve mowed down in pursuing the purity tests and litmus tests for a true conservative. You guys allowed America to falter.
I’m willing to concede you’re beyond rational debate on this point.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 10:09 am - March 11, 2009
Now you pretend to be on the side of conservatives? Also, check into that rusty syndrome thing I mentioned earlier.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:12 am - March 11, 2009
ILC, you’re still tedious and a bit of an echo for V and others. And I recall you got more than a few comments in more than a few threads banned, stricken by GP editors, no? Of course, you failed to bring that to light… kind of intellectually dishonest there.
Nice try though at deflection. It’s always worked for you in the past. And any resulting reflections or deflections not on the thread’s point will be ignored by me… just so you know.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 10:13 am - March 11, 2009
#38, please see above
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 10:14 am - March 11, 2009
MM, you’re still name-calling.
NO. Utterly false. I have never had a comment altered or deleted by any GP editor. Not once, not ever. I have never, ever needed it.
Of course you just tried to tell the whole blog an outright lie about me, MM… wouldn’t you rather have to say that that is kind of dishonest? Heh.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:15 am - March 11, 2009
I will credit your “honesty” though, MM, in your silently / implicitly NOT contesting my assertion: that you have had to have comments of your deleted before, and had to be threatened with a ban for your name-calling.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:16 am - March 11, 2009
As for your constantly bringing up AE’s opinion, MM, like it matters… Why don’t you ask me if it does matter?
I mean, in at least two discussions, AE seriously tried to tell the blog that I supported research into human-animal mating… a falsehood… simply because I supported the idea of gay couples engaging in reproduction in the manner of infertile straight couples, and he didn’t know how to refute me rationally. So he’s a user of your techniques, and I discount his opinions accordingly.
I’m glad you and he are blog-buddies, btw – even though AE is something of a social conservative, and probably something of a supporter of Rush Limbaugh and of border security – because everybody needs somebody. You guys, since you practice much the same dishonest and name-calling techniques on people, belong together.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:24 am - March 11, 2009
Michigan-Matt appears to have gone full derangement:
1.) I can not quite grasp the meaning of this bombast.
2.) Being a social conservative of unsettled color, I wonder if I am exempt or even more suspect.
3.) I would love to know more about “spiteful conviction” which accompanies religious conversion.
4.) No matter what, Michigan-Matt proclaims, the 2008 election would have been the same and this is because the white soc-cons knew what they were doing and ……WILLFULLY turned the entire federal government – including the courts – to the far Left. Ergo, the white soc-cons conspired to create this socialist mess of candy story liberalism run amok.
5.) Michigan-Matt has drunk deep of the elixir of clarity and applied his very best reasoning skills to the situation and now we all understand.
6.) The ear ring of the whale is never far from the core of the apple when the knees of the bee cause panic in the house of Virgo.
Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2009 @ 10:28 am - March 11, 2009
On the topic of who’s been deleted, check out what Google finds:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=87#comment-2584
It was a thread, MM, where you and I were arguing. In other words, you were correct that someone had to be deleted. You simply misremembered who it was. It was you. Kindly refrain from ascribing your sins to me. (Although, I suppose you could always tell people, “ILC made me do it”
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:30 am - March 11, 2009
For accuracy and good karma, I must correct something I said above.
I regret omitting the highlighted qualifier, before. I’m adding it now. There were a few occasions in the past where I proactively requested that a GP editor alter or delete a comment of mine – probably because the blog was having technical problems and what I said had gotten chopped / garbled.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:40 am - March 11, 2009
The pendulum swings back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. The far left did a smart thing in holding onto their party until the pendulum swung back their way. When the pendulum swings back toward Republicans, I want people like Bobby Jindal, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn in charge. Not people like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and T. Coddington Van Vorhees VII.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 11, 2009
(I have twenty bucks that says Eminem is not amused by the Iowahawk article.)
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 11:15 am - March 11, 2009
Iowahawk is a genius
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 11:16 am - March 11, 2009
Yeah, he’s way funnier than I am. The bastard!
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 11:18 am - March 11, 2009
Camille Paglia isn’t a genius – she supported Obama, after all – but she ‘gets it’ that Obama is floundering and Limbaugh is cool:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/print.html
Thanks to Peter H.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 11:21 am - March 11, 2009
ILC, for your comments at #s 41-43, please see #39 above. Thanks.
helio, there’s a simple test for you –since I don’t know if you were one of the soc-cons who stayed home on Election Day 08 and tossed the federal govt over to the farLeft and helped elect Obama– if you did, then yep, you deserve the same fate that awaits disloyal faux-GOPers like V and others.
The upshot of this debate and the struggle for the heart & soul of the GOP is that the disloyal actions of 4.1m soc-con helped to elect Obama. They’d like to point the finger and wag the nail everywhere but where it truly belongs: in their face. That goes for RushBlow, too. And AnnieGetUrGunCoulter. And Tancredo. And a few others.
I also think that the ultimate act of disloyalty by them should be to revoke their privilege (see, it’s a privilege ILC, not a right) to bitch about AllThingsObama and just head to the back of the bud for a while… or generation. But they’re all about pitching a fit and bitching like an angry cynic… even tho’ they helped to create the monster.
And a lot of fake-populist bullsh*t about elites won’t change the fact that their role in the election of “Chairman Zero” was critical. End of story.
Now, if you bite the tough one and voted for McCain… terrific. I know lots of moderate GOPers and some soc-cons who voted for McCain even with his “suspect” conservative credentials. Just like I know lots of moderate GOPers who voted a few yrs ago for Reagan, despite what some thought was a scarey prospect for America’s future.
Of course, if you did vote, you wouldn’t be considered one of Karl Rove’s 4.1m disloyal GOP soc-cons who didn’t show up on Election Day. And that’s the beginning of my point made above to V –but he’d rather spin it toward some other reduction that bears little ’semblance to reality.
Which I get. If I had advised others to “teach the GOP a lesson” by witholding their important vote for McCain on Election Day, I’d probably not want to admit that fact either. It’s, well, sort of unAmerican.
Pendulums do swing… of course, that wisdom comes from a guy who thought staying home on Election Day and turning over the entire federal govt to the farLeft and Obama was a good thing. I’m personally hoping that the pendulum doesn’t swing too far to the Left so that Obama does for the Democrats & liberals what Reagan did for GOPers and conservatives… remake the political landscape for a generation or more.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 11:33 am - March 11, 2009
Translation: You don’t want to admit that *you lied* about me. You, MM, have been dishonest in this thread and won’t take responsibility. Sadly, it’s what I would expect from you.
Oh, that’s much too careful, MM. Just start in with your name-calling. You know you want to. Make up a funny name for heliotrope. We’d all enjoy it – him especially. (heliotrope, no offense)
Isn’t blaming people such a great way to inspire them and win them back? LOL
Now that is f-cked up. No, MM. It is a right, in this instance. A fundamental right called *free speech*. Linked to *the right to vote (or not vote)*. You know… those things in that inconvenient ol’ Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 11:51 am - March 11, 2009
ILC, spin away, do your endlessly tedious and nonsensical rebutting the rebuttal to the rebutted rebuttal… it’s all you, baby. It’s worked for you in the past; heck you may even get one of your echo-chamber pals to join in too.
Please see # 39 above.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 11:54 am - March 11, 2009
Considering McLandslide lost by 10,000,000 votes, focusing on 4 million or so disaffected social cons who may not have voted seems like an unproductive, unless the idea is to shift the blame off of the hapless GOP nominee and his incompetent campaign.
“It’s not our fault we lost, it’s those stupid voters!” has never been a good formula for political recovery.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 12:00 pm - March 11, 2009
“The Real GOP”
[Eminem]
May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will all the social cons just shut up?
I repeat, will all the social cons just shut up?
We’re gonna have a problem here..
Y’all act like you never seen an earmark before
Jaws all on the floor like Rush, like Hannity just burst in the door
and wantin’ O to fail worse than before
It’s the return of the… “Ah, wait, no way, you’re kidding,
he didn’t just say what I think he did, did he?”
And Reagan said… nothing you idiots!
Reagan’s dead, he’s locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
Feminist women love Eminem
[Chorus: Eminem (repeat 2X)]
‘Cause I’m the GOP, yes I’m the real GOP
All you other social cons are just hatin’ me
So won’t you social cons just shut up,
just shut up, just shut up?
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 12:09 pm - March 11, 2009
I’m personally hoping that … Obama does for the Democrats & liberals what Reagan did for GOPers and conservatives… remake the political landscape for a generation or more.
1. You mean like by, giving Amnesty and voting rights to 20 million Democrat-voting illegal immigrants to ensure a permanent Democrat majority? Oh, wait, you support *that.*
2. Second. I thought you regarded Reagan as a failure, whose best day in office was worse than Gerald Ford’s worst day. You seem to be changing your tune a little bit, there.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 12:16 pm - March 11, 2009
Talking to the mirror again, eh MM?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 11, 2009
P.S. Again, more name-calling, please! And lies. You know you wanna.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 11, 2009
#57 V – I think there’s a bigger point to be had. Let’s re-visit MM’s comment. Look at the following two statements, from adjacent paragraphs no less:
Hmm. Should I go with a remark about self-contradictions? Or hypocrisy / people in glass houses not throwing stones? Should I point out that MM just called *himself* un-American? Or should I simply expect total discombobulation from MM, accepting it as normal?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 12:42 pm - March 11, 2009
If the party management was really interested in growing the party instead of demonizing a group of people, they could find a way to build out from a base instead of chopping the base off. Instead of eagerly agreeing with the liberal media that socially conservative ideas were scary and and ridiculous, someone who really was interested in growing the party might try to look for a way to explain those values to moderates and liberals, instead of conceding to the MSM.
More here
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - March 11, 2009
MM is truly the anti-Limbaugh, as I expect he probably wants to be.
- Limbaugh hopes that Obama fails. MM has expressed a hope that Obama succeeds.
- Limbaugh hopes that the GOP succeeds (electorally, and in containing Obama’s ruinous policies). MM has now expressed, indirectly, a hope that the GOP fails – i.e., that his much-hated conservatives which make up 70% of the GOP will be electorally punished “for a generation or more”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - March 11, 2009
ILC, you’ve gone past tedious. When you ask “Talking to the mirror again, eh MM?” With you, it’s more like talking to a dense wall.
Please see my expanded remarks at #39. It’s all you need.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 1:37 pm - March 11, 2009
Talking to the mirror again, eh MM? But you know my feedback: Still more lies and names are needed! MORE!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - March 11, 2009
V and the echo chamber “If the party management was really interested in growing the party instead of demonizing a group of people, they could find a way to build out from a base instead of chopping the base off.”
I think the Party is interested in growing and returning to a majority Party, V. To suggest they aren’t is, well, stupidly inane and just more of your false “elites are evil” nonsense.
Here’s how that building the Party and appealing to other voters can’t work as long as the Party practices your peculiar version of political coalitions based on burning RINOs at the stake… or blood draws for those pesky purity tests you gleefully administer.
I love that you can endure your own hyper-hyprocrisy by saying the Party needs to grow but you, at your most cynical, were part of the farRight soc-con mindset that drove tons of hispanic voters AWAY from the Party in the lead-up to Election 08. Top that little spiteful, hatefilled effort with the 41.m soc-cons who sat out the Election even tho’ McCain kissed the soc-cons’ collective butt on immigration reform & the FMA… and we all run smack dab into your hyprocrisy on hyper drive.
Because the GOP got tarred by talk radio idiots like RushBlow and others (Tancredo, for instance) as bigoted racists and angry white men, we lost the vital GOP-leaning segment of the hispanic vote in 08. McCain underperformed Bush-04 and 00 on hispanics by 13-15.3%. In GOP Congressional races, we had 44% of the hispanic vote in 04 and 46% in 06… we dropped between 15-17 points for McCain in 08… down to 29%. Reagan and Bush 41 and Bush 43 worked their asses off to draw the hispanic vote to the GOP… and it got piddled away by some angry white men masquerading as GOPers in 07 and 08.
Look, your crew of haters had the GOP by the balls in 06 and 08… you controlled the GOP in many of the years from 1980-2006. The Party simply can’t let you ruin its future any more. We need to move away from the divisive social issues you LOVE to champion. We need to become a Party where freedom means freedom for all. We need to clean the wounds your crew inflicted on the BodyPolitic of the GOP. And we need to assure independents and moderates –who Obama needs in 2012– that voting for the GOP won’t be a return to fiscal insanity, bigger govt, hateful politics of division and the angry face of the GOP was really just the angry face of talk radio.
In a nutshell, so to speak.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - March 11, 2009
ILC “Still more lies and names are needed! MORE”
You know, this is more than tedious; it’s alarming. I think the advice others have given you on other blogs and threads about getting out of your PJs, leaving Mommie’s or Grannie’s basement and getting a life are overdue for your attention.
I’m done responding to your taunts. Wanna talk issues or politics? Good. Wanna just bait and do your tiresome schtick? Take a hike up the basement stairs and get some sunlight.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - March 11, 2009
MM: Still more lies and names are needed! MORE!
Debating substantive points: that would be new, for you. Look at your comments in this thread, for example. All you can do with V the K is insult him, call him a hater, peddle your bogus “racist” memes, etc.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 2:19 pm - March 11, 2009
P.S. For the record: To call V the K a hater (#66, “your crew of haters” directed at V) …is a lie. (1) A falsehood, (2) told willfully. Both criteria are needed. A lie about who he is, as a person. I am merely noting the fact. It pleases me to say it aloud.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 2:31 pm - March 11, 2009
ILC “Still more lies and names are needed! MOREâ€
You know, this is more than tedious; it’s alarming. I think the advice others have given you on other blogs and threads about getting out of your PJs, leaving Mommie’s or Grannie’s basement and getting a life are overdue for your attention.
I’m done responding to your taunts. Wanna talk issues or politics? Good. Wanna just bait and do your tiresome schtick? Take a hike up the basement stairs and get some sunlight.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - March 11, 2009
Michigan-Matt,
I went to the polls and voted for Sarah Palin and the Yosemite Sam near-democrat she was dragging at the top of the ticket. Unlike most people, I was delighted she was a heartbeat away from the worst Republican pretender since Mayor Bloomberg.
Many core conservatives who have no choice but to vote Republican, but are not Republicans, stayed away because McCain went out of his way to stick his middle finger in the face of conservative Republicans. He did so by claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan.
I figured that the worst McCain could do wouldn’t equal Obama’s starting point. But I seriously doubt that McCain would be a whit better on the current slide into depression than Obama. They are equally as goofy. The Democrats would have given him a 10 minute honeymoon and whenever he reached across the aisle they would steal his watch and tie his shoe laces together. The MainStreamMedia would have McCain in the public stocks by this time.
So, in the long view, perhaps the voters will figure out what the far left really is and gain an understanding of what their soaring promises have to do with reality. It is the victim class that is best at not showing up to vote when the promises for goodies wane.
Hoover-Roosevelt II is going to need something like a World War to bail itself out. Obama has the helm. It isn’t the moderates and independents who are going keep the country off the rocks. Who do you have in mind? Hucklebee? Romney? McCain again? Pawlenty?
Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2009 @ 2:57 pm - March 11, 2009
Sorry, that was my mistake. Didn’t mean to post that again on #70.
Here’s the rub of it ILC, reading this thread and the ones which preceed it, it’s clear to anyone with even passing intelligence that there’s more substance and insight and discourse on the thread’s topic(s) by me than in all the ramblings you put forth or the silly nonsense of rebutting the rebuttal of the rebutted rebuttal deflection game you seem intent on pretending is discourse. There’s where your tedious and monotonious game-playing loses all appeal.
Like I said, want to talk politics or substance. Sure. But if you want to just keep playing your endless games of taunts, soapbox lectures to the imaginary “assembled” masses awaiting your every word… well, you go ahead and play on without me.
But do get some sunlight, ok?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - March 11, 2009
helio, I can appreciate the reasons why you voted as I can the tone of your response. At least you did vote –unlike some of the perpetual whining class that visit here to complain about Obama.
You contend “Many core conservatives who have no choice but to vote Republican, but are not Republicans, stayed away because McCain went out of his way to stick his middle finger in the face of conservative Republicans. He did so by claiming the mantle of Ronald Reagan.”
Actually, a larger group of voters who use to vote GOP but were repulsed by the harsh rhetoric of the farRight on gay marriage, immigration reform, embryonic stem cell reseach funding Teri Schiavo, English Only and a host of other soc-con “3rd rail” issues walked away from McCain because he was perceived as too conservative and far too much in the backpocket of social conservatives.
Kind of a Catch-22 for him… he needed to court the conservatives and should have had at least the fiscal conservatives… but got reamed by them for his position on TARP1 or the myth of voting against some of the Bush tax cuts. And yet, here was one of a few Congressional members who actually fought against earmarks as part of his career! The very issue conservatives are now pandering to their base about with incredible duplicity and blissful memory loss.
He should have had the soc-cons after groveling on kicking some illegals’ butts and doing the SecurityFirsters dance at CPAC… but he didn’t because, in their eyes, he really didn’t mean it. He should have had them on his singular patriotism, personal self sacarfice of military service and his natl security portfolio –the #1 issue supposedly to those very conservatives… but he didn’t.
He should have had the religious conservatives and church-going voters but his opposition to a federal FMA when none was indicated at that time, lost him votes… as well as the stem cell issue… which even Bush toyed with reversing.
Heck, I ran into soc-cons here in Michigan and Ohio who still thought he was pro-choice and in favor of partial birth abortions in the 3rd trimester… that’s how silly the inbred dialogue by the soc-cons had misled their own base of voters.
You ask the question of who is going to be able to keep the Country off the rocks now that Obama is at the helm. My point is, he shouldn’t be at the helm and the Party needs to enforce some muscle on those soc-con agenda items that took us astray… additionally, we need to muzzle those in the Party who still –God, when will they learn– think beating up on RINOs is the best sport in town.
RINOs aren’t the problem –they are part of the solution. The problem is the soc-cons who keep driving countless and counted voters away from the Party and into the waiting, padded arms of the Obama folks.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - March 11, 2009
ain underperformed Bush-04 and 00 on hispanics by 13-15.3%. In GOP Congressional races, we had 44% of the hispanic vote in 04 and 46% in 06…
It all boils down to principles, Matt.
The social conservatives you decry believe that people like Obama’s aunt, who was in the country illegally, ignored an order to leave, received cheap housing, got free medical care, and had a government job, all at the expense of American citizens who pay taxes, should not be allowed to continue in such behavior and certainly should not be rewarded for it with US citizenship.
You and John McCain think they should be if it gets you 15% more of the Hispanic vote.
That is putting politics over principles, and the fact that John McCain did it so often and so readily in direct contradiction to his stated principles was the problem. McCain destroyed his own credibility, and social conservative voters decided it was better to deal with the person who they knew was going to lie to them and attack them outright than it was to deal with a backstabber and two-timer like McCain.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - March 11, 2009
You mean: The stupid personal attacks and insults that (1) you and (2) AE give me. As if the shot-in-the-dark insults of 2 people known for their name-calling and dishonest tactics with everybody who disagrees with them, should matter to me.
There’s one person in this thread who needs to take advice, MM: It’s you. Stop your lies. They don’t make you look good. Stop your longstanding abuse of people who disagree with you, or challenge you. Note: I don’t really care if you do. It’s just very good advice.
MM, you’re lying to yourself again. And you expect the rest of us to go along, entering your warped reality. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Are we on, what – iteration 3 of your saying that? Or 6?
MM, this is “the rub”: *you lie* about people you disagree with. Proven with V the K, in this thread. Proven with me, in this thread. Proven with many other people, on this blog and other blogs. Your constant insults, in and of themselves, are a large kind of lie. As grownups, most of us don’t really care at the end of the day. I just happen to enjoy underlining it for you, or to say it another way, I happen to enjoy “not co-operating” in your many, constant lies about various people (I’m only one).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - March 11, 2009
As for heliotrope: I expect he is observant and astute enough to understand that if someone weren’t keeping you busy on the topic of your lies and insults, denying you room for maneuver with them, you’d probably wanna try them on him. (Not that he would need the slightest protection. Watching him correct you is like watching Master and Grasshopper.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 5:37 pm - March 11, 2009
NDXXX offers: “It all boils down to principles, Matt.”
Nope, it doesn’t in politics and it didn’t on Election Day 08, NDXXX. What it boiled down to was a group of angry, pouting white men in a snite waiting to exact retribution on a GOP conservative maverick who even debased himself by picking one of their poster grrrls as a Veep mate… Retribution for what? For advancing immigration reform that ALWAYS included additional security provisions to address border crossings? Retribution for what? For trying to advance judicial nominations and break a log jam so that we got at least SOME constructionist judges on the federal courts instead of the choice of the farRight to hold everyone hostage and delay justice for all? Retribution for what? For working across partisan lines to move legislation forward instead of making every bill a litmus test for purity in principles?
Does the paraphrase “Making perfect the enemy of the good” ring a bell?” Politics isn’t about principles in some perfectly ordered, pristine conservative thought construct, NDXXX. It’s about working with coalitions to construct solutions to public policy problems… and yeah, sometimes politicians get it wrong. But the risk of getting it wrong shouldn’t translate into no action… trying in good faith brings about some mistakes. It’s life.
Undermining all of that by openly calling for people to boycott an election in order to create Obama’s Administration in the unreasonable and extreme hope (or hype) that it would be soooo bad the American people would rise up and restore the conservative mantle is not about principles, NDXXX.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 5:43 pm - March 11, 2009
ILC cries out “Are we on, what – iteration 3 of your saying that? Or 6?”
Out of respect for your misfounded pettiness, I think it’s only fair to note that I’m trying to find some common ground for discussion –although you continue to work extra hard to defeat that effort with your continued taunts and silliness of rebutting the rebuttal of the rebutted rebuttal schtick that is so your trademark –here and the other blogs where you’ve irritated the community of commenters beyond tolerance.
I’m still stuck on this point for you though ILC, “There’s where your tedious and monotonious game-playing loses all appeal. Like I said, want to talk politics or substance. Sure. But if you want to just keep playing your endless games of taunts, soapbox lectures to the imaginary “assembled†masses awaiting your every word… well, you go ahead and play on without me.”
So, climb up on that special soapbox of yours and address the thronging masses of imaginary admirers you think are at your beck & call… but I think a little more light and less heat would make you a touch more tolerable, ok?
Game playing is what you’re all about, ILC. I get it; I don’t have to like it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 5:56 pm - March 11, 2009
All you can do with V the K is insult him, call him a hater, peddle your bogus “racist†memes, etc.
In other words, argue like a leftist.
That is putting politics over principles, and the fact that John McCain did it so often and so readily in direct contradiction to his stated principles was the problem.
Exactly.
John McLandslide was so out of touch he used to brag in his stump speeches about the “Gang of 14″ expecting it to be an applause line. It wasn’t.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - March 11, 2009
(John McCain) got reamed by them for … the myth of voting against some of the Bush tax cuts.
What part of John McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts is a myth? He not only voted against them, he grandstanded his opposition to his friends in the media.
And he says *I’m* living in a fantasy world.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - March 11, 2009
NDXXX posits “You and John McCain think they should be if it gets you 15% more of the Hispanic vote.”
Well, thanks for at least not saying we want to drag the children of illegal immigrants to the Folsom St Fair and let them watch muscle marys sodomize each other, NDXXX. That’s some progress I imagine.
Look, it isn’t about subverting “principles” in order to gain back those hispanic votes that you and your pals scared away from the GOP… and you did scare them away. It’s about not approaching the immigration reform proposals as just another opportunity for the angry white cynics to reinforce their Nativist views on America and the GOP. Once again, bad branding the GOP with the fringe soc-con agenda.
See, I would have zero problems if that view was clearly defined as OUTside the GOP. Make it part of the building block for the new conservative minority. Make it part of a restorative KnowNothing Party.
Great. Cool. More power to you.
The problem is that the view you and others here advanced about immigration reform –and you so neatly underscore in #74– is to take the issue and singularly devote it demonizing immigrants and illegal laborers… and it gets labeled as a GOP view by most Americans and certainly by most hispanics and immigrants.
And look, the issue of what angry white cynics have done to the GOP is demostrated by the immigration-hispanic vote issue. It’s why we lost on Election Day 08.
It is intended as an example, NDXXX. It’s not my intent to have to rehash the debate about immigration reform. We’ll get immigration reform later this year… and it’ll be written by liberals and sanctuary city mayors this time… not conservatives working with pragmatic Democrats.
And then the Nativists can pitch a fit again, bitch up a storm and wag those fingers at everyone but themselves… since they HELPED put Obama in office.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - March 11, 2009
V inquires: “What part of John McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts is a myth? He not only voted against them, he grandstanded his opposition to his friends in the media.”
BZZT… even you know, V, that McCain voted against the tax cuts because they weren’t FUNDED. The Gramm-Rudman Act required those tax cuts to be funded by matching revenue modifications on the other side of the ledger.
Did McCain repeatedly point out in his remarks from the Senate Floor that he supported the tax cuts and wanted the Administration to demonstrate how they would fund them? Yep.
But like with many angry white cynic quips, yours is a myth. Pure, unequivocal myth.
Yeah, you’re still in fantasy land or you’ve been listening to RushBlow without your brain turned on.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - March 11, 2009
Michigan-Matt,
Which is it? First you say we got Obama because the social conservatives stayed home and then in #73 you report
Perhaps it is a combination of the two.
I am a social conservative. I oppose gay marriage. Immigration reform is critical to our economic health and our national security. Embryonic stem cell research is possible throughout the world and does not rely on funding from the US taxpayer. (It is a complete canard.) The world speaks English now, because the global computer language is English. Any person who wants to compete now speaks English. English Only is good for your pocketbook, your health and your general welfare. Teri Schiavo is dead because a committee of bureaucrats decided to kill her.
What is your issue? You represent yourself as a moderate and you foam at the mouth about social conservatism. In all instances I can remember, you end up promoting liberal ideals while calling yourself moderate.
In reviewing your words above, you do not present a consistent theme. I asked before and I ask again, who is your Republican model who can carry the Republican Party to victory? Supposedly, there are legions of independent and Democrat moderates who are ready to back a Republican moderate. Name some names.
Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - March 11, 2009
In other words, it isn’t a myth that John McLandslide opposed the Bush tax cuts.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - March 11, 2009
We’ll get immigration reform later this year… and it’ll be written by liberals and sanctuary city mayors this time…
And John McLandslide will support it.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 6:32 pm - March 11, 2009
But, in your other statements, you explicitly reject all notion of discussion or common ground:
Please understand: I don’t give a damn, one way or the other. I just think you’re funny. Quite amusing, in fact. To V, you said:
Then made several more attempts to ‘debate’ him. (Really just insult him… but insults are ‘debate’, in MM-land.) See where I’m going? MM: you can’t even keep your own story straight, from comment to comment. You change it wildly.
Another lie. GayPatriot is, for all practical purposes, the only blog where I comment. Oh wait – I have made a grand total of about 4 comments on IGF in the course of 5 years, and on Teh Resistance, and TGC’s blog a couple years ago. I should be precise and accurate here. But to suggest that I even *try* to be part of other online communities – and am then rejected – is just *another, typical Michigan-Matt lying tactic*.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - March 11, 2009
We’ll get immigration reform later this year… and it’ll be written by liberals and sanctuary city mayors this time… not conservatives working with pragmatic Democrats.
And it will look exactly the same as it did when it was “conservatives” like McCain working with “pragmatic Democrats”.
That’s what you’re missing, Matt. If I have a choice between Obama Party members and Obama Lite Republicans who are going to do the same thing, I’ll take the Obama Party; that way, when they screw up, they own it, and they can’t hide behind “bipartisanship”.
And as far as Hispanic voters go, if the price of their vote is turning a blind eye to welfare fraud, identity theft, and illegal immigration, then I’d rather not have it. You and your fellow Obama Lites would be surprised, I think, at just how strong the opposition is to amnesty and illegal immigration among Hispanics — if, of course, you were to give them a choice including people who actually opposed it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2009 @ 6:42 pm - March 11, 2009
(#85 continued) So MM – Give us more lies about the people you disagree with. More insults. We… need…. MOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRR!:!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!! LOL
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - March 11, 2009
Immigration reform is an ideal example of the party bosses mishandling conservatives on an issue. Instead of explaining the conservative case that border control was a necessary element of national security, and explaining to the American people that conservatives were very concerned about the economic costs of providing social services to illegals (two issues that resonate with the voters), John McLandslide and the party bosses agreed with the liberal left and set about demonizing the conservatives as racists. They basically sabotaged their own party in that way, because they would rather curry favor with the left than confront a serious national challenge in a responsible way.
I also note that if Bush had really tried to start securing the border in 2001, he probably would have gotten his Amnesty in 2006.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - March 11, 2009
People were also a bit ticked that Johnny McLandslide opposed requiring illegals to pay the full amount of their back taxes, and supported allowing illegals to keep social security benefits that had obtained through identity theft.
Comment by V the K — March 11, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - March 11, 2009
V, you can contend whatever your limited, blindered-vision cares to contend on McCain and the soc-con myth that he opposed Bush’s tax cuts. He didn’t. He supported them and held the fiscally prudent position that the Administration needed to fund them per extant federal requirements… for you, that means he opposed them. Unfortunately, in order to keep bitching about Obama’s recklessness on fiscal matters or earmarks, you have to admit McCain’s position on fiscal conservatism was right. But then, that requires an embrace of reality you’ve been graciously and dilligently avoiding so you can continue to piss in those boots of yours. McLandslide? How lame is that? Pretty lame, V.
Fantasy land is your home turf, not mine. And, again, this is yet another example of where the shorthand of your cynical, anti-govt, anti-elites, anti-pragamatism song&dance gets in the way of seeing reality or appreciating the value of compromise for the sake of progress. All of that’s great for bitter, angry white men playing quotemasters over on your blog… but it isn’t governance. It’s an excuse to bitch and high five yourself.
It’s why you earlier railed endlessly and –taking a page from the ILC School of Debate Gamesmanship– would rather demean all GOP candidates with those silly Rudy McRomney taunts about the GOP field rather than actually debate why you thought bigot #1 or bigot #2 were your choice to carry the GOP prez banner.
Your best arguments are better suited for a SouthPark episode; not real political debate and certainly not for the business of governance.
Hey ILC, why do you persist in trying to goad and taunt anyone who disagrees with your echo chamber nonsense or calls you out for the all the games, faux-outrage and meaningless chatter?
Debate substance, ILC. You got a take on the soc-con myth about McCain? You got a take on why your pals ran down the hispanic vote with the immigration reform issues or McCain’s proposals to address the 20+ yr problem of illegal laborers in America? You got a take on why anyone should care what you think about the GOP or her future given that you’ve been an animus toward the Party?
Substance ILC. Or else you can stay out of the debate. Come on, you can do it… I’ve seen you do it without resorting to the juvenile “ohhh, more name calling” gleeful exclamations. You have the intellectual tools, I’m sure. S U B S T A N C E.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 8:22 pm - March 11, 2009
NDXX offers (missing the forest and the trees, unfortunately): “And it will look exactly the same as it did when it was “conservatives†like McCain working with “pragmatic Democratsâ€.”
You think? Are you smoking the same dope that V’s been bonging on?
Oh, I think the next immigration reform package is going to even rock the socks off your furry feet, NDXXX. Only this time is will be passing even with all your pals foaming and venting and ranting with barking bigotries hiding as “national security” issues. I know that NDN’s Sy Rosenberg is already working with Congressional Dem leadership and Administration officials to draft the new proposal; also at the table is Frank Sharry of the radical America’s Voice Project.
You think Health Care is going to be bad… you thought the Stimulus and Omnibus bills were bad… you ain’t seen nothing.
It’ll begin with real, full amnesty for all illegals and any undocmented workers who cross the border before Jan 1 2012. It’ll provide funds to offset “protection costs” and social costs absorbed by sanctuary cities fighting “the good fight”. It’ll likely fast track illegals AND legals on citizenship and modify requirements for same. It’ll raise the work permits and visa quota to allow for more, not less, immigrant wannabes. It’ll mandate hospitals & clincs accept non-documented aliens seeking medical attention. It’ll press for enlargement of the public defenders’ alliances for non-docs. It’ll drastically cut back on ICE and literally call a halt to construction of the Wall. There is a provision floating to add illegal laborers to the list of protected minority classes for federal contracts. There’s another provision to mandate employers pay more in employment taxes to allow illegals to claim workers comp and UI at the state levels. Ouch.
And that will only be the opening gambit… in the Senate. The House will expand the provisions far wider and include lots of provisions that will make the ol’ “McAmnesty” bill look like a good deal even to the most deranged McCain hater in your camp. LaRaza is already working with Rep Lofgren to develop their WishList for the package –the “sweeping” package this time because immigration reform advocates think the ol’ Kennedy bill didn’t go far enough. Yikes.
And who will employers have to thank? Who will young, angry white males complaining about being “Mexico’s bitch” have to thank? Soc-cons like you and your pals fresh from the last HateIsGr8 meeting? Yep.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - March 11, 2009
helio asks: “What is your issue? You represent yourself as a moderate and you foam at the mouth about social conservatism. In all instances I can remember, you end up promoting liberal ideals while calling yourself moderate.”
Social conservatism, helio, isn’t the problem. On many “social” issues I consider myself a moderate to conservative… right to life issues, funding for stem cell research, end of life issues.
The problem, to put a fine point on it once again, are the soc-cons who stayed home and didn’t vote on Election Day, want to complain endlessly and think it’s their God-given right to continue to pollute the political arena with their spite… all the while claiming they know what’s best for the GOP and America.
Social conservatism isn’t the problem, helio. It’s what happened to the Party that listened to their claptrap and adopted their agenda without considering the consequences to the Party’s viability nor the adverse impact to voting constituencies… which is what politics is all about… voters.
For what it’s worth, I supported Michigan’s own Mitt Romney in the last go around. But I supported and voted for McCain when it came time to stand against Obama and the farLeft.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 11, 2009 @ 9:03 pm - March 11, 2009
Michigan-Matt,
I consider you “muddled” at best and perhaps confused.
You clearly dislike red meat conservatives and believe they drive others away.
Ethically, you can not sublimate your principles in order blend in with others. It is not necessary to wear a bumper sticker on your forehead, but a strong belief system is not negotiable or something you sublimate when it comes to choosing and supporting a candidate.
Mitt Romney is far from conservative. If he is the Republican choice in 2012, I will vote for him.
As for now, my wallet is tightly sealed to the many Republican appeals for money.
So far as I am concerned, moderates and independents pose themselves as some sort of extra thoughtful voters. Courting moderates and independents from the left is quite different than courting them from the right. The choices are between principle and goodies. Conservatives don’t do goodies.
Comment by heliotrope — March 11, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - March 11, 2009
Except I don’t. I may goad and taunt *you*, MM. Or others – mainly lefties, but not always lefties – who use shameful tactics equal to yours. And notice that I don’t even do it all the time, with you: I wait for you to whip out your most shameful tactics, as you’ve done in this thread. And I’ve already told you why. The reasons, again, are:
1) You lie about good people.
2) Not that those people need my protection, but, it gives me pleasure to underline the nature of your lies – your shameful tactics.
You seem to not be getting the above, but hey, maybe this time the penny will drop. One never knows.
Oh, I do. With the grownups. You don’t seem able to participate in that.
MM, that makes no sense. “My pals ran down the Hispanic vote” – wtf? Would that be my college friends? My co-workers? Or the other grownups on this blog, who may be Republicans or conservatives and who are understanding of the fact that I’m not? It’s a mystery.
MM – It’s really simple. I’ll say it yet again. Maybe this time, the penny will drop for you. *You need to stop lying and using shameful, dishonest tactics if you want respect from people* on this or any blog. Not that you have to. It’s fine if you want to use dishonest, name-calling tactics. Perfectly OK. But then you won’t have people’s respect.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:49 pm - March 11, 2009
P.S. And you’ll eventually drive yourself to the point, as you’ve done in the past, where blogs delete you and threaten you with bans (as the GayPatriot blog owners once had to do).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - March 11, 2009
To try to make it shorter: I’m happy to discuss substance with honest people… and the honest people on this blog know who they are. MM, you’re not one. That isn’t my fault. It’s yours. Name-calling, in your case, is one of the way you lie. Your names generally do not convey truth. You have others ways of lying – e.g., just making sh*t up about people, as you’ve done in this thread, with me and with V the K. I’ll happily discuss substance with you… when you, MM, STOP LYING ABOUT GOOD PEOPLE. Ok? Clear now?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 11, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - March 11, 2009
Lying is kind of the typical, unproductive thing the moderate wing of the GOP is doing these days. For John McLandslide to be out telling voters, “Unlike other people in my party, I don’t hate Hispanics,” was the kind of self-serving lie that damaged the party. It’s of a piece with SpecterCollinsSnowe saying, “Unlike those irresponsible hard-liners in our party, we don’t want to force the country into a Great Depression,” or Michael Steele nodding along while a CNN host calls Republicans N-a-z-i-s.
It’s not only infuriating to conservatives that party leaders won’t stand up against the media-left’s distortions and lies, but the way party leaders more or less concede their points isn’t exactly going to win over any voters to the Republican side.
Comment by V the K — March 12, 2009 @ 8:59 am - March 12, 2009
V, I wish I could tell you that you were wrong. I’m afraid I can’t.
I think there are degrees of lying. I think McCain is well-meaning, just egotistical and not very bright. He has spent his whole life trying to protect America. I grant him that he really wants to serve America. But he is a very poor thinker, is all too subject to self-flattery, and thirsts for left-wing media recognition. He tells certain falsehoods, and he keeps himself blind in certain ways – which makes his falsehoods partially, indirectly willful. But he’s still not as bad as, say, left-wing political operatives who spin and lie continually to increase their own power, and are happy to throw America under the bus. Or, closer to home, blog commentors who spin and lie about good human beings rather than revise their opinions after losing a debate.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 10:14 am - March 12, 2009
P.S. Just for grins, I would like to illustrate a blog commentor revising his opinions after losing a debate. There was a time when I thought gay marriage was an ‘equal rights’ issue, and I had the outraged language to go with it. You, NDT and others disagreed with me. You haven’t talked me out of supporting gay marriage, as you know. But y’all forced me to understand that treating the acquisition of a State marriage license as a basic right is indefensible and leads to indefensible outcomes. Rather than spin and lie about you as human beings, instead I corrected that part of my opinions. (A State license is a privilege that the People do get to legislate, yadda yadda.) What a concept, eh?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 10:24 am - March 12, 2009
ILC, I give the Democrat’s credit. One of the reasons they have been successful is they don’t attack their own base; even though that radical left base is far more extreme than the Conservative Right. You never heard the Democrat Party leadership vilify Code Pink, La Raza, MoveOn, or ACORN the way Republican party leaders attack the Christian Coalition, the Minutemen, and Talk Radio. (And this includes John “Agents of Intolerance” McCain).
Comment by V the K — March 12, 2009 @ 11:43 am - March 12, 2009
ILC, I give the Democrats credit for being smart enough not to eat their own, not to attack their own base. Even though Code Pink, La Raza, MoveOn, ACORN and the lot are far more extreme than their counterparts on the Conservative Right, you’ll never hear Democrat party leaders attack them the way Republicans attack the C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n Coalition, the Minutemen, and Talk Radio.
Comment by V the K — March 12, 2009 @ 11:48 am - March 12, 2009
Touche.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - March 12, 2009
(#85 addendum, for full disclosure & accuracy: I’ve also commented on NDT’s blog, maybe a few times per year.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 12, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - March 12, 2009