GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Comments

  2. 60 senators liberal all …..60 senators all… take one down, kick him around….59 senators left on the mall.

    59 senators liberal all ….59 senators all… take one down, kick him around…..etc etc etc

  3. Now you guys are really up against it, With power comes responsibility, and from this day forward your party will rightly assume the blame for anything and everything that the Congress fails to accomplish over the next 11 months.

  4. #3: Did everybody get that? Apparently, if this country is not transformed into the socialist utopia that Obama has envisioned within 11 months, Democrats plan to blame Republicans. So, just brace yourselves for that new experience.

  6. 75 seat advantage in the House and 59 Senators how in hell is it the Republicans responsibility to get anything done. BTW Obamateleprompter didn’t say during the campaign….”hey I can’t do poop even if I have 60 senators and 275 house seats.””
    waaaaaa waaaaaa
    I lost MA now I can’t do anything. No free health care, no 5% unemployed, no change, no nuthin. waaaa waaaaa

  7. All of the liberal Democrat policies are opposed by 60-70z% of the people. You know the people, the ones who kicked “Marcias “boody in MA.
    ROUT THE LIBERALS IN 2010

  8. “75 seat advantage in the House and 59 Senators how in hell is it the Republicans responsibility to get anything done.”

    Because you need 60 Senators, Gene – otherwise any bill can be stopped.
    Why do you think the title of this post is 41! – as if that were some highly important number? Because it is – it gives you guys an absolute veto over ALL legislation.

    But you knew that….

  9. I don’t know how you people view arithmetic, but through my calculations 41 is a smaller number than 59 and far from a preponderance of a reason out of 100; just thought that I would through it out there. Also there are plenty of ways to defeat a filibuster.

  12. Tano, President Bush got a lot done without a 60-vote majority. President Reagan got his agenda through Congress without a 60-vote majority, and in fact while in the minority party.

    Yet Barry Obama is too much of a failure to get anything done without 61 votes?

    I guess that just shows how incompetent and unpopular Obama and his follower are.

    I can see the 2012 sloagans now:
    “Vote Obama: He’s Totally Incompetent!”

  14. Now you guys are really up against it, With power comes responsibility, and from this day forward your party will rightly assume the blame for anything and everything that the whacky left Congress fails to accomplish pushes over on us during the next 11 months.

    That fixes it.

  15. “Tano, President Bush got a lot done without a 60-vote majority. ”

    Because Democrats are not obstructionists, and actually cared about getting things done. Thats also probably why they were rewarded with power.

  16. #15: “Because Democrats are not obstructionists, and actually cared about getting things done. Thats also probably why they were rewarded with power.”

    Tano, Charles Krauthhammer has already eviscerated your daily talking points:

    “That brings us to Part 2 of the liberal conceit: Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

    It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good. A 2002 New York Times obituary for philosopher Robert Nozick explained that the strongly libertarian implications of Nozick’s masterwork, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” “proved comforting to the right, which was grateful for what it embraced as philosophical justification.” The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.

    This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda — which couldn’t get through even a Democratic Congress and powered major Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts — is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.

    By contrast, Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent. And dissent, we were told at the time, including by candidate Obama, is “one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”

    No more. Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s.

    Then comes Massachusetts, an election Obama himself helped nationalize, to shatter this most self-congratulatory of illusions.”

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/05/dont_they_understand_massachusetts.html

  17. Tano, could it have been that President Bush actually knew something about executive-level politics… and Obama is just a socialist whose idea of leadership is demands and threats?

  18. “Democratic opposition to George W. Bush — from Iraq to Social Security reform — constituted dissent”

    Actually it constituted common sense. The majority of Americans came to realize that the Iraq war was a mistake. And that putting part of Social Security in the stock market would have been an unmitigated disaster.

    “Liberals act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.”

    This is a distorted strawman version of a concept that has some real truth behind it. Politicians in general tend to be driven by a desire for power, and they focus on elections like CEOs focus on quarterly reports – those are the landmarks by which they are judged, so they focus on it. Self-aggrandizement and self-interest are also very common in all politicians.

    So no, liberals do not fantasize that these are characteristics only found in conservatives. But they do tend to rise to the fore amongst conservatives because it is true that liberals also tend to have a real sense of the public interest which also motivates them. And conservatives tend not to have such a concept. In fact, you guys, when you look at liberals and focus on that interest in the public good – you tend to characterize that as socialism.

    Conservatives tend not to believe in government, beyond the basics of defense. They have a very minmal view of “the common good’ or the public interest. Their ideology arises out of the perspective of the wealthy and powerful – those who have no need for government other than to protect their property. Thus conservatives, when they look to take positions of political power, tend to pursue private, or special interests. Tilt the playing field to favor the interests of my business, or my industry. Pass laws and regulations that would allow me to avoid responsibility for pollution that I create. Prevent my workers from having any right to negotiate their wages as a group.

    “The right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.”

    Thats pretty much true. A lot of rightwing polemics entails exactly this.

    ‘“They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” ”

    But y’all were quite explicit about that.

    ‘..their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, ”

    Thats right. That is the hypothesis. Y’all think that because you won in MA, a state that already has Obamacare, of a sorts, that you have proof that America will reject the Dems. Fine, that is your hypothesis.

    This is the way it is supposed to work. Competing hypotheses. We will see who wins out in the end.

    The funniest thing though, is that the Dems won huge national victories – the House, the Senate, the White House – and you guys are desperately trying to make the case that we overinterpreted our mandate. And yet you guys win….what? A senate seat? And all of a sudden this has vast historical meaning? An existential foot-stomping by the American people?
    In other words Sean, heed your own warnings…

  19. Because Democrats are not obstructionists

    Tell that to Miguel Estrada, you lying sack of crap.

    Also, for all of last year, Republicans were in a position to obstruct nothing. You had 60 votes, and all you guys managed to do was explode the deficit. What’s your excuse?

  20. You know, Tano in his #18 sermonette has revealed his absolute paucity of understanding of the Federalist Papers or the workings of capitalism. He has spewed his ogre-under-the-bridge view of those who are not a part of his bunkered Amen chorus.

    There is nothing so weak as a mind that has been overcome with ideology. Tano comes here to sputter bits of shrapnel from his boiler plate blind loyalty to the party line.

    If he holds some illusion of challenging a debate or, God forbid, trying to sway anyone to adopt his talking points, he is beyond delusional.

    God help the poor man, he can not exist without Iraq, Bush and all the other creepy crawly demons of his mind.

  21. the Federalist Papers? Huh? I made no comments whatsoever on any issue regarding the meaning of our Constitution or way of governance, or anything else touched on in the Federalist Papers. I merely described the attitudes of contemporary liberals and conservatives.

    Capitalism? Where did I mention anything about capitalism? What on earth are you ranting about now Helio?

    “There is nothing so weak as a mind that has been overcome with ideology.”

    Look in the mirror, buddy.

    “…he can not exist without Iraq, Bush …”

    ??? Once again, where does this rant come from? I did not raise any issue regarding Bush or Iraq. Krauthammer did – I merely responded by pointing out the reasons why Dems opposed two of his more ridiculous policies.

    Anyway, perhaps you should take a deep breath, reread your own comment, and realize that whatever weakness you may find in my discourse, it is infinitely more substantive than your string of insults.

  22. “Because Democrats are not obstructionists, and actually cared about getting things done. Thats also probably why they were rewarded with power.” – Tano

    Lulz @ partisans who think that one party is inherently better at governing than the other.

    Lulz @ people who think that a party is one single thing in the first place. Parties, believe it or not, consist of actual people. The GOP has only 41 Senators, which means that those people would have to march in absolute unity to stop Democrats from pushing their agenda. Not even Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe can defect. If the Democrats make any single tiny effort towards opening the legislating process up to the Republicans, they will get the votes they need.

  23. But they do tend to rise to the fore amongst conservatives because it is true that liberals also tend to have a real sense of the public interest which also motivates them. And conservatives tend not to have such a concept.

    Wrong.

    — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    — Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    — Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

    — Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    — In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    — People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

    You see, Tano, conservatives put their money where their mouth is when it comes to compassion and the public interest.

    You and your fellow Obama Party members do not. In fact, you outright refuse to pay the taxes that you levy to fund the “public interest”. You are demanding that others be forced to give more and more when you yourself refuse to do so at all.

    In short, liberals like Tano simply lie when they talk about the “public interest”. Indeed, liberals like Tano use the Federal government to enrich themselves personally and avoid paying their debts or their fair share. Tano himself has admitted that he is working on a “government contract” and billing the taxpayers for the time that he spends insulting them here on this website.

  24. The funny part is that Tano once again demonstrates how liberals like himself are simply projecting the behaviors they regularly commit onto conservatives.

    Tilt the playing field to favor the interests of my business, or my industry.

    Which Tano fully endorses and supports liberals doing.

    Top federal regulators say they were taken aback when they learned that a California congresswoman who helped set up a meeting with bankers last year had family financial ties to a bank whose chief executive asked them for up to $50 million in special bailout funds.

    Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, requested the September meeting on behalf of executives at OneUnited, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks. Ms. Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank’s board until early last year and has owned at least $250,000 of its stock.

    Or:

    Prevent my workers from having any right to negotiate their wages as a group.

    Which Tano fully endorses and supports unions doing.

    Indeed, ACORN management for years had blocked employee attempts to unionize until the National Labor Relations Board forced them to allow organizing. In March 2003, the nonprofit group lost its final appeal of an NLRB ruling holding that ACORN had violated its employees’ rights. ACORN doesn’t even like paying the minimum wage, let alone a “living” wage set several dollars an hour higher. In 1995, ACORN’s California chapter went to court seeking an exemption from having to pay its workers the state minimum, at the time a mere $4.25 an hour. The group lost. In its unsuccessful appeal, ACORN argued that being forced to pay its workers the minimum wage would violate its First Amendment rights.

    So what we see here is that Tano fully supports and endorses liberals and liberal groups doing everything that he alleges conservatives are doing and argues is not in the “public interest”.