November 29, 2012
— Ace This part is a great point.
At this moment, Republicans in Congress need to examine which presents a more dire threat to the country:A) A double-dip recession driven by the sequester and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, or
B) the public’s belief (verified through polling) that our giant debt, our ticking time bomb of entitlements, and our gargantuan government can be solved by “asking the richest Americans to pay a little bit more,” as Obama insists.
Option A is terrible, but Option B is the giant locked door blocking all of the real solutions.
So if we must have tax hikes, let the tax cuts for every income level expire and let everyone of every income level pay higher taxes. Destroy the illusion among so many voters that they can get all the government they want without paying more in taxes.
Obama was permitted by the media to claim, or at least strongly imply, that the painful cuts Romney was talking about (and Obama, the Great Leader, was not talking about) could be averted simply by levying a small tax on the "richest 1%." It was a lie. It was further a lie the media assisted in. All those Fact Checks and not a single column noting that the central pillar of Barack Obama's Re-Election Strategy was a baldfaced lie that only the uninformed or innumerate could possibly believe.
The media is strongly complicit in this lie.
If I were someone in power, I would make this connection vigorously, and lay the blame at the feet of the media, and inform the public the media lied to them, and if they're about to get a unwelcome shock, they should write to ABC, CNN, NBC, and the rest of the clownshow and ask them why they chose not to report the actual numbers.
But I'm sure they won't, because they're stupid.*
At any rate, the public does believe this (and why shouldn't they? The President told them the only fix that was needed was a tax hike on the rich and the media vouched for him).
Time to strip them of that misapprehension and force them to confront the actual choice.
* Also, why the hell didn't Romney and Ryan pound this? Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Why not... give Obama his tax hike on the rich and the small cuts he's willing to agree to -- and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling any further?
Call him out. "You said you could balance things with these measures. So do so."
Posted by: Ace at
12:06 PM
| Comments (565)
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 29, 2012 12:07 PM (4df7R)
Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 12:07 PM (Jls4P)
Time to strip them of that misapprehension and force them to confront the actual choice.
___
I like this plan. Abuse the LIVs, the vagina voters, the stoopid collidge kids. Seems like it's the only thing they respond to. After all, they reacted to the preazy boning they've been getting by rewarding him with another term.
Bring the pain. WE are prepared.
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 12:08 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 29, 2012 12:09 PM (epxV4)
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
This is what we need to keep saying...over and over.
It's the way to prosperity, right?
Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 12:10 PM (CM59X)
Posted by: Zombie Jim Morrison at November 29, 2012 12:11 PM (XvHmy)
Expose the liberal lie that all of our fiscal issues can be fixed by the "rich" paying a little more.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 12:11 PM (sxk7T)
LET. IT. BURN.
Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 12:11 PM (Jls4P)
Posted by: Tickle at November 29, 2012 12:12 PM (b+jI9)
Posted by: The Washington Post at November 29, 2012 12:12 PM (QKKT0)
Go over the cliff, the news will blame the GOP and the low info voter, if they hear about it, will judge the GOP as evil bastards that ruined the unicorn skittles that the SCOAMF promised THEM! It will not be Obama's fault ... just those that said no to giving THE skittle-crowd their share of the free shit.
Posted by: Yip at November 29, 2012 12:12 PM (/jHWN)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 29, 2012 12:12 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: EC at November 29, 2012 12:13 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Vizzini at November 29, 2012 12:13 PM (O7Q1u)
Posted by: i am mad as hell - period at November 29, 2012 12:13 PM (cgxNI)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 12:14 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: tfox at November 29, 2012 12:14 PM (DVC2D)
This undercuts your "no one else could have done better" stance from yesterday's "Damn RINOs" post. Unless they're *all* "stupid, stupid stupid," in which case, ultra-doom.
Posted by: Knemon at November 29, 2012 12:14 PM (ZPhyj)
The deuce, you say!
Posted by: The Washington Post at November 29, 2012 12:14 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 12:14 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 12:15 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (GFM2b)
Jib. Cut. Newsletter.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (X/+QT)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (NzBQO)
Geraghty is just reciting the points of the Let It Burn crowd. Let's take our lumps now for more prosperity down the road. I have been saying this for a while now. The cut taxes side of the GOP has been very successful. But it has finally reached its limit, because the only taxes that can be cut now are for the rich, less than 5% of the vote. Its not that cutting taxes wasn't a winning message. It was. It won big time. But we can't cut them anymore, except by cutting a small portion of the electorate whom most people have little sympathy for. The thing to do is to put more people back on the tax rolls. It will be easier to lower tax rates for the producers who can grow this economy when you couple it with tax cuts for the middle class. But as a simple policy argument, it is difficult to make.
FWIW, I think Romney and Ryan did pound this message. It just isn't a sexy message that appeals to the average voter. We think the average voter votes on rational thinking. They don't. People will vote on abortion much more than on a policy argument.
Let it burn is actually not really letting it burn. It is letting the country make a course correction that it has to make. We won't make the tough cuts voluntarily, because that goes against human nature. Use the fiscal cliff as cover to make the tough choice. The only choice to be made is to not make a choice.
Yes, yes, go through the motions of trying to compromise. We will lose the spin war, but try it anyway.
I would pass a single legislation that does the following:
1. Raise taxes on the rich.
2. Cuts taxes on the middle class (not even sure it is possible - but maybe get rid of all employee share of payroll taxes - leave it in place for high earners).
3. Repeal Obamacare.
At least be able to say that Obama held middle class tax cuts hostage to save Obamacare.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Dan Rather at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (QKKT0)
We're gonna get screwed anyway. Let's screw everybody. Share the "wealth".
Posted by: Roy at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (VndSC)
They're not stupid, they're cowardly.
And the Dem solution when we do go over the cliff? Kill the rich!!
Posted by: PJ at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (ZWaLo)
This would work great as a petition on prezzy's website. You would probably get tons of signatures from the LIV's
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/22/petition-white-house-we-people
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2012 12:16 PM (tf9Ne)
This. Why did the RNC and Romney/Ryan not pound this point home every day?
Fucking morons (not you guys, but the REAL morons of epic stupid) let them call it "tax cuts for the rich" for YEARS and never contested it. NOT. ONCE.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:17 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 12:17 PM (hNXHo)
33 Give him his tax hikes on the highest, then only extend the debt ceiling to cover this year, then come back and say where is your recovery.
Bullshit. Don't extnd the debt ceiling. Demand cuts to stay under it. or LiFB.
Posted by: Roy at November 29, 2012 12:17 PM (VndSC)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:17 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Bizzarro Speaker Boehner, pointing to his crotch at November 29, 2012 12:18 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Walkers! at November 29, 2012 12:18 PM (TYO2p)
Hit it with napalm and watch it burn... with the heat of 1,000 suns...
Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 12:18 PM (Jls4P)
So....you're saying Obama is a SCOAMF.
And so is the American electorate.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 12:18 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:19 PM (7vSU0)
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
This is what we need to keep saying...over and over.
It's the way to prosperity, right?
Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 04:10 PM (CM59X)
This argument always cracks me up because the only reason the Clinton tax rates were tolerable was due to the DOT COM BOOM!!!!!! No one cared because there was SOOOOOO much money flying around, no one really noticed.
Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:19 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Morris the Cat at November 29, 2012 12:20 PM (epxV4)
Posted by: JPS at November 29, 2012 12:20 PM (b66w5)
What difference does it make. We'll watch it anyway
Posted by: Low Information Voter at November 29, 2012 12:20 PM (O7Q1u)
Free Shit Army gladiator fights.
Two hipsters enter. One hipster leaves.
Posted by: EC at November 29, 2012 12:20 PM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (UK9cE)
Solar panels and battery powered cars.
Get up to speed, dude.
Posted by: jwb7605 (Let It Burn) at November 29, 2012 12:20 PM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (FrJ3o)
Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (hNXHo)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (epxV4)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (7vSU0)
The GOP is like the wife of a guy who rapes and kills little boys, then places the bodies under the floorboards and behind the walls.
She smells the decay. Of course she does. And when the people start asking questions, she has nothing to say. What's she going to say?
Some lies are too big. People don't believe the truth because the lie can't be comprehended.
Posted by: BurtTC at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (TOk1P)
BURN baby BURN Fiscal INFERNO burn baby burn BURN THAT MUTHA DOWN
Posted by: The Trampps at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (qL20/)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (gmeXX)
__
I think Mark Levin hatched a similar plan. He said that Boehner needs to present a plan that cuts taxes 10 per cent on the lowest two brackets, and then if preazy balks, make him wear the middle class meanie dunce cap forevermore.
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 12:21 PM (jm/9g)
Once again Republicans are called upon to make the adult decisions.
Democrats have no responsibility.
Posted by: egd at November 29, 2012 12:22 PM (XVGEg)
Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 12:22 PM (9XBK2)
If this round of tax hikes doesn't work, that just means they weren't enough and we raise the rate again.
And again.
And again.
Eventually, when we get to where the rate should be on those filthy, evil, greedy rich, like 173%. And boy howdy, we'll start seeing this economy turn around right quick.
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 12:23 PM (gCa4h)
There is no way to win an election on the idea that we need to cut spending without raising taxes. You simply can't win an election on that. The party that says we will not cut spending, but will raise taxes on the rich will win every time. Romney and Ryan did campaign on this. They lost. You certainly can't run on that when the candidate himself is rich. People vote on emotion, not rational thinking.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:23 PM (gmeXX)
Time to strip them of that misapprehension and force them to confront the actual choice.
Yep. So far the public has gotten all the government bennies they want without ever having to fully pay for it. This needs to end.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 29, 2012 12:23 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 29, 2012 12:23 PM (+z5LA)
49 Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
This is what we need to keep saying...over and over.
It's the way to prosperity, right?
Heh.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 04:10 PM (CM59X)
Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?
Posted by: Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (UK9cE)
----------
Yep.
We were actually in a recession when Bush was elected.
But the media was covering it up.
They're good at that...covering shit up, for Dems.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 12:23 PM (CM59X)
Democrats have no responsibility.
Posted by: egd at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (XVGEg)
The definition of liberalism is actions have no consequences.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:24 PM (UK9cE)
At any rate, the public does believe this ...
No - the more than 59 million Americans who voted for Romney/Ryan surely do NOT believe this.
I don't know why Obama is acting as if he won in a landslide, or worse, why we are acting like that.
He got about 3.4 million more votes than Romney, which is less than the population of Los Angeles.
Posted by: LASue at November 29, 2012 12:24 PM (pWeX5)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:24 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Hopeless at November 29, 2012 12:25 PM (svdpV)
Posted by: Knemon at November 29, 2012 04:14 PM (ZPhyj)
Nope - the other candidates would have been at least as stupid but just in their own special ways.
Posted by: Mætenloch at November 29, 2012 12:25 PM (pAlYe)
Eventually, when we get to where the rate should be on those filthy, evil, greedy rich, like 173%. And boy howdy, we'll start seeing this economy turn around right quick.
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 04:23 PM (gCa4h)
Go watch the latest Firewall video, fucknut.
Taking everyone's everything will only run this fucking thing for 1 year.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:25 PM (UK9cE)
I'd be cool with that - if the slackers paid any income taxes.
Which, of course, they do not.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 12:25 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: MJ at November 29, 2012 12:26 PM (TR60b)
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 12:26 PM (3x3F6)
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (Fm9UD)
Get some bicillin for that, skank!
Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 12:26 PM (Jls4P)
Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 12:27 PM (jucos)
Dose the tax rates need to expire for everyone at least for a year to have more people become concerned about gov't spending and waste? Will raising tax rates for at least one year wake people to fact the Tea Party weren't crazy racist loons after all?
Posted by: Deli LLama at November 29, 2012 12:27 PM (lGu1O)
Romney couldn't pound any point about raising the tax rates of rich people because he, unlike Rick Santorum, is: a Rich Person. This was only one of numerous problems with Romney -- see also Romneycare -- that various sophisticated people ignored because they couldn't bear campaigning for a guy who told a religious group he believes in the same devil that a majority of Americans believe in. I mean, running A GUY LIKE THAT couldn've lost us the election!!
-----------------
We don't need to rehash this but it is worth noting that if you don't win, it doesn't matter how you campaigned or how you would have governed, because you can't govern. Obama did not campaign as an idelogue, but that is how he is governing. Win first, then you can pass your policies. So we need to figure out how to win.
We know what isn't working. Running rich white artistocratic republicans and avoiding social issues that might actually appeal to a voter and get him to vote for you.
Populism sells in this country. We need to find a way to run on it from a conservative perspective. This was one reason why I supported Santorum at the end. He was best able to sell populism. I liked Romney, thought he ran a tough campaign, but he was the wrong man at the wrong moment.
Now back to letting it burn.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:27 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 04:23 PM (gmeXX)
The clock has run out. We have no more time to fix this by 2017.
Thinking about how to win an election only insures continued stagnation and prolonged misery.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 12:28 PM (i3OIF)
Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 04:27 PM (jucos)
You're at the wrong site.
TMZ is 3 doors down on the left.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:28 PM (UK9cE)
Dude, do you have any idea what arugula costs these days?
Posted by: Typical Alexandria, VA resident at November 29, 2012 12:28 PM (sbV1u)
Perfect! Then we just need to do that every single year and we're set!
(I smell another Nobel Prize coming my way.....)
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 12:28 PM (gCa4h)
I am the god of hell fire and I bring you:
Fire,
I'll take you to burn.
Fire,
I'll take you to learn.
I'll see you burn!
You fought hard and you saved and learned, but all of it's going to burn.
And your mind, your tiny mind, you know you've really been so blind. Now 's your time burn your mind.
You're falling far too far behind.
Oh no, oh no, oh no, you gonna burn!
Fire,
to destroy all you've done.
Fire,
to end all you've become. I'll feel you burn! You've been living like a little girl, in the middle of your little world. And your mind, your tiny mind, you know you've really been so blind. Now 's your time burn your mind, you're falling far too far behind
Posted by: The Crazy World of Barack O Bumbles at November 29, 2012 12:28 PM (Bf15u)
Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 12:29 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:30 PM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Olaf at November 29, 2012 12:30 PM (/YJYi)
Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 29, 2012 04:28 PM (5iuEW)
So, I take it you saw Hillary's plan for AIDS prevention today then?
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:30 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 29, 2012 12:31 PM (jucos)
Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 12:31 PM (9XBK2)
We need to make it evolutionarily advantageous again to be intelligent and see the rise of large families for the smartest of couples. We have suffered a stupendous dumb-ening in the last century.
I blame WWI for starting the slide. We lost the flower of Europe, and ushered in the great entitlement philosophy in America.
After the lax intellectual demands of the boomers and their progeny, we have arrived at teh most aggressively ignorant generation since, what, Carolingian times?
Eventually society will revert to warlordism and petty fiefdoms. Once that happens, you will see alternatively: genocide of minority populations (not "Minorities" but whoever is in the minority, of whatever race) by organized gangs of political or racial groups, a complete breakdown of any social cohesion, or authoritarian areas ruled with an eye to the good, but with dissent punished ruthlessly.
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 12:31 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2012 12:31 PM (wsGWu)
That horse left the barn decades ago, in fact that horse is probably dead.
Nah, it's still alive, just in hiding.
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 12:31 PM (3x3F6)
It's not just that he claimed that taxing the rich was the solution to our deficit problem. He simultaneously proposed the tax increases be used to fund more spending on teachers and other pet causes.
$1000 billion annual deficits, and he was running around pretending that $83 billion a year would fund both new spending and significant deficit reduction.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 12:32 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 12:32 PM (7vSU0)
Whoa. Love's in need of love today, Stevie.
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:32 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 12:33 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:33 PM (FrJ3o)
Once again Republicans are called upon to make the adult decisions.
Democrats have no responsibility.
___________________
Democrats don't want the responsibility because they are playing a different game. We think they are acting irresponsible, they think they are simply doing what is necessary to get their ideology passed.
Let me try this analogy. The GOP thinks we are playing football and the Dems just failed to convert on 4th down, so we get the ball back. The Dems have just said, we are playing soccer and we still have the ball. Just crying foul isn't doing us any good. So instead of continuing to play football or soccer, let's just play baseball and start hitting the ball with the bat. Time to stop playing our game or their game, and to play a different game all together.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:33 PM (gmeXX)
You're right. At this point, it takes a very special kind of stupid to believe you can trust anyone in the Obama administration.
Fortunately, we have that special kind of stupid by the metric shit ton load.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 12:34 PM (sbV1u)
Romney couldn't pound any point about raising the tax rates of rich people because he, unlike Rick Santorum, is: a Rich Person. Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (FrJ3o)
Rick Santorum is a wealthy man, just not as wealthy as Romney.
Wouldn't have made any difference.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 12:34 PM (i3OIF)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 12:34 PM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Beagle at November 29, 2012 12:34 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 29, 2012 12:35 PM (jucos)
Barky ran on Clinton's 'prosperity'.
He put Clinton out there to campaign for him.
He had Clinton praising him at the Dem Convention.
Clinton's Tax Rates date back to his first two years in office...when he had a Dem-controlled Senate and House.
So those are 'Democrat Tax Rates' through and through.
Let's let them have those back.
All of them.
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!
This is all that needs to be said...over and over.
This is how we make them own it.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 12:35 PM (CM59X)
Posted by: BignJames at November 29, 2012 12:35 PM (rlFQ+)
Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 12:36 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 12:36 PM (GFM2b)
---
LiLo needs to lie low but instead she is living large.
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:36 PM (Hx5uv)
I have long been an advocate of the need to make things worse before we can make them better, so in light of constructive destruction, I say let it burn.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (FrJ3o)
Why are Republicans silent about this? Make the Dems own it.Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (wsGWu)
Impossible to do. People who don't even pay taxes and collect gov't largess get $1,000 per kid. Dems' will just it turn around and say : "see, we told ya, evil republicans were going to take away your money!"
Posted by: Deli LLama at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (lGu1O)
Then lets pick Halo and we get the cheat codes.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (tf9Ne)
Romney failed, time-after-time, to take the opportunities to educate voters about specific real-world problems with liberal policies while he had their attention. Why? Because he was a moderate who had governed as a moderate. In the case of Obamacare, he couldn't explain why it doesn't work without dissing his own MA healthcare takeover.
-------
I agree with the latter half of your statement, but disagree with the first half. You can't educate voters to win the election. You must appeal to them. You must lead them. The best leaders don't waste time educating people, they simply lead them by appealing to them at their gut. Whatever that is.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: RWC at November 29, 2012 12:37 PM (fWAjv)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (ndlFj)
Uninformed and/or innumerate.......clean it up, please.
Posted by: BignJames at November 29, 2012 04:35 PM (rlFQ+)
The founders always knew this. That is why Voting was restricted to TAX PAYERS.
Thank you 24th amendment for killing the nation.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:38 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (jUytm)
But they moved the headphone jack to the BOTTOM!!!
BOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:38 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 12:38 PM (7vSU0)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Every single Republican who appears in front of a camera should include the following statement - "There aren't enough rich people." Drive it home to anyone and everyone, over and over again, repeatedly, that there simply aren't enough "rich" people to pay for what Obama's trying to do. Turn it into a meme. Hammer it into the public consciousness over and over and over again. The moment "Tax the Rich" is mentioned, "There aren't enough rich people" should instantly bubble up from the unconsciousness. On the surface, people may continue to loudly insist otherwise. But deep down inside they'll start to get a bit uneasy over the idea of having the rich pay for everything, even if they're not quite sure why.
Posted by: junior at November 29, 2012 12:38 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Bruce at November 29, 2012 12:38 PM (qB0/v)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (op9Rd)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Luntz's Dunces at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (6cOMd)
BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
oh wait... you're being serious here?
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (gCa4h)
Ace said Why not... give Obama his tax hike on the rich and the small cuts he's willing to agree to -- and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling any further?
Call him out. "You said you could balance things with these measures. So do so."
A brilliant idea which I love and would never work since the legacy media controls the zeitgeist. The Republicans couldn't get enough visibility to make it work and there in lies our problems, in 2012 and beyond.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (jhI6f)
Posted by: Deli LLama at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (lGu1O)
Yup, Republicans are going to get the blame for the Democrat created Disasters. Hasn't anyone yet figured out that the Media are the real enemy?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:39 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:40 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 12:41 PM (op9Rd)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:41 PM (FrJ3o)
Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2012 12:41 PM (wsGWu)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (FrJ3o)
(Shakes head)
He did not win the primary, didn't come close in the end.
His religion would not have been a positive it would have been a negative. Santorum actually believes Catholic doctrine and we are secularizing country.
The fact that voters created in their mind a perception of Romney solely based on his wealth cannot be fixed by merely nominating the poorest guy because Santorum himself is a Millionaire.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 12:42 PM (i3OIF)
It's not a phone, but it's not a pad.......Its BRILLIANT I TELL YOU!!!!
Baaaa--aa--aa--aa ple......
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:42 PM (UK9cE)
Yup, Republicans are going to get the blame for the Democrat created Disasters. Hasn't anyone yet figured out that the Media are the real enemy?
No shit, Sherlock. But absent violence and illegal actions, the options for dealing with the MSM are limited.
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 12:42 PM (3x3F6)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (FrJ3o)
I blame WWI for starting the slide. We lost the flower of Europe, and ushered in the great entitlement philosophy in America.
___
Remember who couldn't wait to get the US into that fight: the original Progressive, Woody Wilson. The guy who said he welcomed the opportunity to dialogue with the new Bolshevik government, that they'd be much easier to deal with than the Tsar.
The same guy who believed Socialism and Democracy were one and the same.
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (jm/9g)
Let It Burn is building up to critical mass. I know the House members are removed from reality but you would think their staffers at least would keep an eye on the masses. It's almost as if the Republican staffers don't follow the conservative media.
Posted by: Decaf at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (lTb7m)
Posted by: Uriah Heep at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (jhI6f)
Therein has long lay the problem. In 1994, when Newt Gingrich was leading the House, the media chopped him into mincemeat. Till we take out the enemy "Air" force, we are going to get continually strafed and we will continuously lose.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (bb5+k)
Give the people what they want. A teachable moment.
All on Obama.
Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 12:43 PM (R18D0)
Going over the cliff is probably a really bad idea and the Republicans will be blamed.
Raising taxes on just the "rich" doesn't sound good to me, but would it really be worse? Krugman, etal., keep saying no problem, and Obama assures us it'll supply all the money we will ever need. I don't think so, but given the alternatives, this is the least harmful, and hell, they could be right. All I read about is how rich people like Buffet want to pay higher taxes.
The only way to test the hypothesis is to let the Dems have their way, and at this point that's better than holding out for something worse, which will all be laid at teh feet of Republicans.
And none of this fiscal tomfoolery even approaches the regulatory poopstorm that is scheduled to bury the economy. That's below the superficial coverage of the media and is most likely to pull us down and drown us like an unseen riptide.
We're all screwed. Lube up with K.Y. to survive until the next round and embrace the least worse alternative.
Posted by: kraki at November 29, 2012 12:44 PM (ylLDT)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (X/+QT)
---
You mean the guy who campaigned with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of the War" in the fall of 1916 and then declared war in April 1917?
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (Hx5uv)
Really? Explaining WHY Obamacare is a disaster rather than just repeating "it 'hurts businesses' and needs to be repealed" wouldn't have made a difference? Running 30-second ads in swing-states explaining these things wouldn't have made a difference?
__________________
Yes, rather than explaining why Obamacare is a disaster is a waste of time. You know what message really worked for the GOP against Obamacare. Death panels.
Saying death panels over and over will cause more people to want to vote against Obamacare than explaining Obamacare to people. That is whay I mean, when I say you must appeal to people's emotion.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Shoey at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (jdOk/)
I think it is our duty to help it burn. The "pain" will be the only way to rouse an asleep public to take corrective action. The House is on fire and the occupants are asleep. God only knows how some well needed embers falling on bare skin might save lives.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (bb5+k)
Why would they? They're not conservatives. They're Winners. Just like their bosses.
Posted by: oblig. at November 29, 2012 12:45 PM (cePv8)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (bb5+k)
.That's what made both the GOP primary debates and the Romney and Barry debates so frustrating. They had the floor. Could have ignored any stupid question asked, looked strait into the camera and address the people directly. Opportunities lost.
Posted by: Deli LLama at November 29, 2012 12:46 PM (lGu1O)
It's true.
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (jUytm)
And it shall suck.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:46 PM (UK9cE)
Holy shit, a child molester is going to replace JJJ
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334369/ convicted-child-sex-offender-campaigning-jesse-jackson-jrs-house-seat-eliana-johnson
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 12:46 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:46 PM (7vSU0)
No -themore than 59 million Americans who voted for Romney/Ryan surely do NOT believe this.
I don't know why Obama is actingas if he won in a landslide, or worse, why we are acting like that.
He got about 3.4 million more votes than Romney, which is less than the population of Los Angeles.
Posted by: LASue at November 29, 2012 04:24 PM (pWeX5)</i>
Obviously that is not enough. Obama won largely because he was able to convince enough people who would not vote for him to stay home and not vote for Romney either. The media is so much in the tank that the only way to get through to people what the consequences of their actions or inactions is to step back and not protect them from those consequences. The media will say that all the pain they are feeling was caused by Republicans. Many people will believe them but many more will not.
Let it burn.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (dGtaD)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (CxJM2)
I love the rich. I hope to be among them someday. But we need to put a end to the stupid notion that we can tax these individuals as a way to deal with our out of control spending.
Posted by: California Red at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (Ln+8k)
That might have held true right up until the point where Santorum opened his mouth.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Nora at November 29, 2012 12:47 PM (RGgMp)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (Hx5uv)
___
Same playbook as today: run a deceptive campaign. And the LIVs fall for it. Every. damn. time.
Wait - wasn't Woody elected before women's suffrage.
*you can't blame that one on us, men of AoS*
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (op9Rd)
And this is why I want to BEAT DOWN (with extreme prejudice) anyone suggesting we should raise taxes. It doesn't matter what revenue the government receives, expenditures will always be revenue + X% .
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Hopeless at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (s+Cb9)
It's so funny how you seem to believe that the media would not have engaged in the same vile character assassination of Santorum as they did Romney.
Yeah, they only went after Romney because he was rich. They NEVER would have been able to do that to good ol' blue-collar Rick, so they would have thrown up their hands and done nothing at all, securing President Santorum's victory.
Get real.
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (gCa4h)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:43 PM (FrJ3o)
Except most of them don't believe it. That isn't entirely their fault, but they don't. If they did, you wouldn't see almost an complete secularization of many of them by the end of the first generation.
Christianity in the 2012 America is not an admired asset.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 12:48 PM (i3OIF)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (iy7de)
Skin in the game, baybee.
Posted by: cranky-d at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (HDtn6)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (FrJ3o)
No. Next question.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: The Enemy From Within at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (d8K+M)
we go "over the cliff" and congress has ceded it's authority to an appointed board to determine what to cut. Gorelick is on that board.
This is going to end with 720,000 Alaskans cremated in a Chinese death camp while our President seeks a peaceful solution.
Posted by: Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (A0oS/)
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334369/ convicted-child-sex-offender-campaigning-jesse-jackson-jrs-house-seat-eliana-johnson
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 04:46 PM (UaxA0)
GOOD!!! For a minute there, I thought it was going to go to a WHITE person.
Crisis averted.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (UK9cE)
Rick Santorum was perceived to be a regular, middle-class guy. Blue collar workers liked him. Fair or not, that would have gone a long way in attracting the voters who were turned off by Romney.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (FrJ3o)
---------------------------------------------------
If Santorum would have been the nominee, how long would it have been until the MFM started changing that image? See what we're up against?
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 12:49 PM (oy/E2)
Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 29, 2012 12:50 PM (XIRMS)
I don't think we will go over a cliff. It will be more like skittering down a steep, rocky slope.
Try to keep your balance; steer for the gravel.
Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 12:50 PM (z9HTb)
>>>Wally, did you know they're re-making Mad Max?
Well, they can't remake 'Beyond Thunderdome'.
Nobody could hope to match Dennehy as the Thunderdome.
Posted by: garrett at November 29, 2012 12:50 PM (Fm9UD)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 12:50 PM (op9Rd)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:50 PM (jUytm)
"So if we must have tax hikes, let the tax cuts for every income level expire and let everyone of every income level pay higher taxes."
vs.
"Why not... give Obama his tax hike on the rich ..."
Are these blatantly self-contradictory posts supposed to have meaning?
Posted by: Gerry at November 29, 2012 12:51 PM (xmffn)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 12:51 PM (kdfQ/)
Then we watch it all burn to the ground.
And start over in 2016, hoping that maybe a few voters will come to their senses and realize it was all a load of crap all along and it's time to act like adults.
Posted by: Dennis at November 29, 2012 12:51 PM (SEkXG)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:51 PM (7vSU0)
What will destroy us is some fake deal where in 30 years Congress promises to look at cutting MediCare. That's when we wake up and suddenly the dollar has collapsed.
America needs to get a taste of what big government really is, it's not just Warren Buffett paying a little more at tax time.
If Democrats were proposing real reform (like say Simpson-Bowles) I would be willing to cut a deal and give Obama his top tax tax rates. But that's obviously not going to happen, Obama has zero interest in actually controlling the deficit.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 12:52 PM (sxk7T)
I hope to be among them someday. But we need to put a end to the stupid notion that we can tax these individuals as a way to deal with our out of control spending.
_____
Here is why I am for letting it burn which increases taxes on everyone. Because if we simply raise taxes on the rich in an effort to show the public that you simply can't do it, here is how it will go.
Let's say we raise taxes on families over $250,000 to a 39% tax rate. That is only about 10% of the population (maybe less). Well, we will then be told we need to raise their rates more and lower that amount. So do we then vote for a 42% rate and lower it to $200,000? That only affects about 15% of the population. When that doesn't work, we just lower it again. It doesn't matter what you do, the Dems will always be able to say that there are more rich people out there who are not paying their fair share. The strategy just doesn't work. So the other strategy is letting everyone's rates go up. I prefer that one.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:52 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: calbadger at November 29, 2012 12:52 PM (TaWQc)
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 04:42 PM (3x3F6)
I have been leaning more and more to the solution of BEATING THE EVERLOVING SHIT OUT OF THEM. Chris Mathews ought to be afraid to walk the street for fear someone is going to attempt to knock his teeth out. Same thing with Bill Maher.
I have been thinking for some time, should I ever encounter these people, I shall endeavor to see how many times I can punch them in the face before they are either unconscious or till someone pulls me off of them. I'll leave a note explaining why. They can read it when they wake up.
It works for the Muslims.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:53 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (UK9cE)
********
Natural gas and oil, until fracking is banned.
Posted by: Grim at November 29, 2012 12:53 PM (tO352)
I love the rich. I hope to be among them someday. But we need to put a end to the stupid notion that we can tax these individuals as a way to deal with our out of control spending.
Posted by: California Red
By the same token, and it may be heresy to say so, it is beyond obvious that tax cuts aren't going to "starve the beast."
Everyone should pay taxes, the rich a little more (because more of their income is disposable). That's just where the majority in the nation come down. You may not like it, it may offent your pure libertarian ideals. Tough shit.
We can't exempt 47% of the population from taxes and expect to win on tax cut pledges.
The "lower taxes" theme is deader than Hitler's cock. If someone doesn't find a new winning message, we will be long in the wilderness. The cliff's a great idea for that reason alone, lots of people will see their dispoable income reduced by nearly $170 a month.
Good.
And the answer won't be to restore the tax cuts. It will be to cut spending and stop borrowing. At some point those things WILL happen. it's now just a question of when
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 12:53 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:54 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:54 PM (7vSU0)
Why not... give Obama his tax hike on the rich and the small cuts he's willing to agree to -- and then refuse to raise the debt ceiling any further?
*sigh*
That's the point. Obama campaigned on his assertion that taxing the rich a little more will fix the economy. Let's give him that. Don't even bother with cuts. Just raise taxes on the rich like he wanted. Shout it out. We're letting Obama have his fix for the economy!
Then sit back and watch the fun.
1. $80 billion more from the rich per year.
2. ?
3. Utopia!
Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 12:55 PM (QW+AD)
Posted by: Proverbs 25:22 at November 29, 2012 12:55 PM (OOML8)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 12:55 PM (FrJ3o)
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst.
---
My guess is that we get a former Austrian corporal and relocation to the East.
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 12:55 PM (Hx5uv)
Let it burn. Let the slackers starve in the cold. They can Save The World from Evil Oil as they freeze in unheated houses.
Posted by: Morris the Cat at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (epxV4)
Tax the shit out of the MFM, Buffett, Hollywood and anyone in entertainment. These assholes wanted Barry not let them pay for it. Of course the minute their money is at stake (I'm looking at you Tits Perry) they start screaming bloody murder about it
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (1Jaio)
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (Hx5uv)
That's what I like about this place. We remember our History.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: La Raza at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (YmPwQ)
Tax hikes are not easily reversed,
_____
They are a lot easier to reverse if everyone's get hiked.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (hNXHo)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:54 PM (7vSU0)
Aren't those called holograms?
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (QW+AD)
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 04:42 PM (3x3F6)
------------------------------------------------
This is true. Until they feel physically threatened, they're going to keep doing what they're doing. I know that attitude isn't politically correct but I'm tired of political correctness. It's killing my country.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 12:56 PM (oy/E2)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (gmeXX)
And you are exactly right. For reasoned men, a reasoned argument. For fools? Emotion.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (bb5+k)
There is only one problem with the "Let them own it" and "Let it Burn" theory: Tax hikes are not easily reversed, New spending/New Bureaucracy once implemented is damn near impossible to kill, and some defense cuts could cripple National Defense and is also not always easily reversible.
I don't think you understand what burning means.
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (TULs6)
F. Yes.
Let. It. Burn. Go over the cliff. Obama is literally (ht: Biden) daring the GOP to do it. Stand up to Senor Jug Ears and do it.
Let him own it. Let all the low-information sycophants who voted for him because of "vaginas" and "birth control" and "he just needs another four years" suffer.
Posted by: Hoi Polloi Wingnutia at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (xvtYZ)
Posted by: calbadger at November 29, 2012 04:52 PM (TaWQc)
Pedal to the metal, both feet, stand on it.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (jeAQW)
Posted by: Beagle at November 29, 2012 12:57 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: mrp at November 29, 2012 12:58 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (IS2o0)
Anyone in "entertainment" or the MFM. Let everyone know Brian Williams' salary and how unfair it is that he makes all that money. Hit assholes like that with a 90% tax rate, no loopholes
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 29, 2012 12:58 PM (1Jaio)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 12:58 PM (jUytm)
BTW:
some defense cuts could cripple National Defense
LOFL. Yeah, and some budget cuts could cripple our economy.
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 12:58 PM (TULs6)
Posted by: California Red at November 29, 2012 12:59 PM (Ln+8k)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 12:59 PM (7vSU0)
If I were someone in power, I would make this connection vigorously, and
lay the blame at the feet of the media, and inform the public the media
lied to them, and if they're about to get a unwelcome shock, they
should write to ABC, CNN, NBC, and the rest of the clownshow and ask
them why they chose not to report the actual numbers.
----------------------------------------------------
So please tell me. How are you going to get that word out to the so-called "low-info voter"?
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 12:59 PM (oy/E2)
http://bit.ly/VhdQ0Z
Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at November 29, 2012 04:57 PM (jeAQW)
Is that bitch eating candy!?!?!
Hypocrite.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 12:59 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: black ashes are racist at November 29, 2012 01:00 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:00 PM (FrJ3o)
"Look, whether roughly 51 percent of voters realize it or not, in November they effectively voted for another recession. Might as well get it over with."
____________
Ace missed the last paragraph in Geraghty's post, and it is spot on.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:00 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 29, 2012 01:00 PM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Thula McBurnBitch at November 29, 2012 01:00 PM (dvRYt)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (9+ccr)
The ignorant, useless rabble have taken over, and are driving it into the ground. Welcome to South Africa, circa 1996.
I denounce myself preemptively.
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (RuUvx)
Socons need a polished and persuasive position and talking points. You are killing your own movement on top of several senate runs.
__________________
Nothing for nothing, I would argue that the socons have had lot more political success and advanced their agenda a lot further than the fiscons.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:01 PM (FrJ3o)
Not right away. Of course not. The point is, let's get on with the process. I want my kids to see Freedom.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:02 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:02 PM (kdfQ/)
I keep seeing people write:
"Republicans will get blamed"
Oh yeah? ...For what?
For returning to the Clinton Tax Rates?
The Dems like to say that Clinton was a fucking genius, and we need to return to the 'prosperity' of the Clinton years.
The Clinton Tax Rates were in place then.
Let them have their Clinton Tax Rates back.
Heh.
The Dems may try to call it a "tax hike on the middle class"....
But it's the Clinton Tax Rates!
How can it be bad, if those same rates were put in place by Clinton and the Dems, themselves?
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 01:02 PM (CM59X)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 04:50 PM (op9Rd)
You seem to think that Obama's win will not bring fiscal/social Armageddon. On what basis do you see any hope of averting a Mad Max style apocalypse? The dollar is going to tank, and it won't matter what the tax rates will be. They won't be able to print them fast enough.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:03 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 01:03 PM (LpQbZ)
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst.
It's a big big gamble. But really, Nov 6 showed us we have decades of work ahead of us. We are headed to suffering, either through progressivism to socialism or collapse, take your pick. If we get their soon, the living memory of freedom (Those who grew up in the 80s and before) will still be around to tell about thhat better way. If we just continue the grind, we still get the suffering, 50-60 years from now with no one left alive who remembers what America was like when men were free and so, with no example abroad to look to, will never know that life could be better. We aren't France, nor Russia. Roll the dice, it's the best odds we've got right now.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:03 PM (0q2P7)
No shit, Sherlock. But absent violence and illegal actions, the options for dealing with the MSM are limited.
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 04:42 PM (3x3F6)
At some point they will need Republican votes. For example when they need to raise the debt ceiling. The price for that can be annual auctions of the TV broadcast spectrum, copyright protection limited to 20 years with no extensions exactly like patent protection and, what the hell, a dollar a copy newspaper tax. Two dollars if it is delivered. While we're at it, repeal the Eisenhower Movie Tax Cut and how about a federal tax on TV commercials.
I wonder how many of these taxes can be applied at the state level?
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 29, 2012 01:03 PM (dGtaD)
The one part of Romney's campaign that always bugged me was the "I'm going to make China play fair message."
Perhaps that is the type of emotional appeal that I generally support from politicians to win votes even when I know rationally it is meaningless. But I think it is a very weak emotional appeal, as it simply sounds more whiny to me, and is unbecoming as a statement from a superior world power. Just wanted to get that off my chest for some reason.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:03 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: USS Diversity at November 29, 2012 01:04 PM (85EaA)
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 04:51 PM (kdfQ/)
Yes, this is the more accurate way to look at it. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:04 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Caustic at November 29, 2012 01:04 PM (/b8+5)
Republicans will never learn.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:04 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (FrJ3o)
__
Hispanics may share Santorum's religion, but they still voted for a preazy who is instituting a direct assault on the Catholic Church's religious freedom. As did most nominal Catholics. Most Catholics do not share the same deeply held beliefs as do the Santorii. 21c. American Catholics are more into deciding what to wear to baby's Christening than worrying about silly shit like the Church being put in a position to actively defend her 1st amendment rights.
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 01:05 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 01:05 PM (QW+AD)
They've already suggested that their "cuts" will consist mostly "war savings" from pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In other words, not spending money on something there's no longer a need or plan to spend money on. They'll claim having agreed to hundreds of billions in painful spending cuts without lifting a finger. Because they're so darned bi-partisan and reasonable, you see.
Then, they'll blame Republicans for hurting The Children with their "extreme" cuts and negotiating in bad faith should they insist on anything more.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 01:05 PM (SY2Kh)
We'll meet the socialists in the streets. And all the wee little dictators with their Rumplestiltskin complexes, too.
As if it's going to get fixed any other way. Crash is inevitable. All hands brace for shock. And then we'll see about this surplus of leeches, leftists and limpwrists that's infesting our country.
Posted by: Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down at November 29, 2012 01:06 PM (qL20/)
Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 01:06 PM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:06 PM (kdfQ/)
Posted by: calbadger at November 29, 2012 04:52 PM (TaWQc)
Thank you. Exactly what I was getting at earlier when I said I wanted to beat down anyone suggesting a tax increase. The Democrats Always beat us in these deals.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:07 PM (bb5+k)
"The media is strongly complicit in this lie. "
------------------------------
And they still are. They are busy laying the groundwork for the next Big Lie, that being that the Republican Congress is to blame for the coming 2013 recession.
The Republicans are once again mistaken thinking they are debating tax policy and in believing the thing to do is whatÂ’s right for the economy. Obama and the democrats donÂ’t care about any fiscal cliff, they care about winning the issue. The idea is to take credit when times are good and blame Republicans when times are bad.
Listen to what Obama and all the other dems are saying. They know we are about to enter another recession, and they are positioning themselves to blame Republican foot-dragging on taxes as the reason. And donÂ’t think the Media couldnÂ’t pull it off.
The party that controls the White House and the Senate will control policy.The best thing the Republicans may be able to do is give Obama everything he wants on taxes and let him own the results. After all, itÂ’s what the American people voted for. Let them take their medicine.
Posted by: Beef at November 29, 2012 01:07 PM (mb1uj)
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 01:07 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 01:08 PM (7vSU0)
Are you kidding? His positions were FAR worse than Akin, he actually is on video stating he wanted to use his Presidential campaign to talk about the dangers of birth control among married people.
And then there was the video where he said "mainline" Protestants aren't real Christians.
And he also holds the "no rape exception" for abortion that around 85% of Americans are against.
Santorum was also a millionaire lobbyist, he may not be as rich as Romney, but he'd have gotten shit for it just the same.
Instead of a 2-3 point race, Santorum would have been a 10 point race with Republicans losing the House and countless Governorships.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 01:08 PM (sxk7T)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (jUytm)
Yes she has.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 01:08 PM (UK9cE)
Boehner should propose a tax rate of 95% of anyone making $500K+. Pass it and send it over to Harry Reid. Then let Harry Reid explain why this is a bad idea. Then when you've established that taxing evil rich (mainly white) people doesn't solve all fiscal issues, Republicans go back and start negotiating again and we never hear about taxing the "rich" ever again from the Democrats or the MFM.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:08 PM (HDgX3)
yes and no, not really on the federal level (and as long as "Roe" is in place what the states can do is limited)
____
Yes, but there is the hope that Roe could be weakened, if not repealed. Plus, they have generally moved people to a more 50/50 split on abortion where as 15 years ago, only about 40% identified as pro life. I will give you that I believe a lot of this success is due to sonogram technology and facebooking sonograms, but still.
Plus I would argue that fiscons have been successful at the state level too.
I'm for both, and don't think the two positions are mutually exclusive. And I agree with the original statement that sometimes certain socons are detrimental to the movement. I've long argued to leave God out of any socon discussion as he is not necessary to make a supporting argument.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:09 PM (gmeXX)
That's even better. Give him the tax increase on the rich that he wants and his "spending cuts" and tell the media that they gave Obama everything he wanted.
Then stock up on popcorn.
Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 01:09 PM (QW+AD)
Posted by: imp at November 29, 2012 04:53 PM (UaxA0)
It needs to go beyond that. The Poor need to be forced to work for the government in lieu of paying taxes. (Never happen.) The unadulterated truth is that people who get the benefits of slavery, think slavery is a pretty good idea.
No Representation without Taxation!!!!!!!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:09 PM (bb5+k)
Boehner vs. Biden. Roshambo. Best of nine.
Posted by: Fritz at November 29, 2012 01:09 PM (d8K+M)
A) Santorum is also rich. Do you think he could have hidden that from the "eat-the-rich" crowd? Do you honestly think they would have given him a pass on that because he wasn't as rich as Romney?
2) The media may not have used the exact same tactics against Santorum as they did against Romney, but they would have found another line of attack. And Santorum has already given them an abundance of ammo to launch in his direction.
III) If Santorum couldn't even convince the members of his own party that he wasn't yet another tax-and-spend Washington insider with a really, really weak message and a really fragile glass jaw, just how was he going to convince the population at large?
Look, I get it. You like Santorum. I get it. So to you, he was the perfect candidate. And all others pale in comparison to St. Rick. And I will certainly not waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.
My last comment to you on this subject is that, out here in the real world, Santorum was no better and arguably a far worse Presidential candidate than Romney ever was. He, in my opinion, would have been destroyed in the last election, probably even losing states that McCain won.
Of course, we have no way of proving this, so please, continue to fight that last fight while we attempt to look ahead to the future.
Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 01:09 PM (gCa4h)
One word about Dewey and you and I will have a BIG problem.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:12 PM (GsoHv)
If anyone is prepared for a full out of control blaze it will be a Mormon with 250 million dollars.
I'd like to see the doomsday prepping the Romney's have made. To paraphrase Seinfeld's TV girlfriend, I bet its spectacular.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:12 PM (m2CN7)
Boehner gives Obama his tax increases. In exchange all Boehner asks for is an EO from Obama that no new EPA regulations can take effect for the next 4 years.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:12 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 01:12 PM (iy7de)
wondering is what makes life worthwhile...also she did show the girls in "Monster"...
not that they were that worth seeing then...
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (LRFds)
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 04:51 PM (kdfQ/)
Yes, this is the more accurate way to look at it. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (bb5+k)
-------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily. There will be some red states that will remain relatively intact and will be showing relative prosperity.
That's why I say for everyone living in red states. Encourage your governments to resist as much of the fed's mandates as they can. The red states will be the leaders. If you live in a blue state and refuse to move, you're fucked.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (oy/E2)
In theory these types of tactics are great. But imagine how the GOP would be portrayed by the MFM: Unserious, extreme, counterproductive, etc.
A losing game should not be played. And this is a losing game we're in.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (zpqa2)
A bad idea???
Posted by: Harry Reid at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (eG4bU)
Posted by: mrp at November 29, 2012 04:58 PM (HjPtV)
I think anything which cuts the financial throats of those Media bastards is in the best interest of this nation. Buy/rent foreign movies. They may still be socialist pricks, but at least they aren't funding Socialist assholes in our country.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:13 PM (bb5+k)
Not true if we Run red.
Texas could keep liberty just fine if ran by Red....
If ran by Schumer not so much.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:14 PM (LRFds)
Instead of a 2-3 point race, Santorum would have been a 10 point race with Republicans losing the House and countless Governorships.
______________
Easy to say, but little actual proof to support your theory. Just as there is no way to know for certain whether Santorum would have performed better. I doubt it would have been worse, and certainly don't think it would have been 10 points as you say. But no way to tell in either direction.
It doesn't matter anymore. This is what we know. We have lost two straight elections nominating rich aristocratice white moderates. We probably shouldn't nominate a third. Basically that eliminates Jeb, but all the other potential front runners are probably ok.
Now back to letting it burn.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:14 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 29, 2012 04:58 PM (1Jaio)
Yup. I'm all in favor of tax increases on Democrat assholes.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:14 PM (bb5+k)
It's almost like a middle finger from the grave.
Here you guys control the White House and and Senate by a comfortable margin, yet we can still fuck up everything.
We've tried the way of doing everything possible to get a pat on the head from the media that's out to destroy us, how about we try something different? Actively try and piss them off.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 01:15 PM (sxk7T)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:15 PM (eG4bU)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:15 PM (FrJ3o)
I hold the MSM responsible for everything. More so even than Obama. They could have stopped him but they didn't. The believe lying and stealing (and murder-Benghazi) are an acceptable price to pay for their utopia and their king. They will pay someday. You cannot fool God.
Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 29, 2012 01:15 PM (DoZD+)
Instead of a 2-3 point race, Santorum would have been a 10 point race with Republicans losing the House and countless Governorships.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (sxk7T)
Well, that's your opinion. But I'm guessing you thought Mitt was a lock.
I'm not going to say Santorum would've won, but the race would have been different. There wouldn't have been the 47% comment or ads showing Santorum as a wall-street raider.
Bottom line is, I'm sick of FiscCons claiming that they are the path to electoral victory. You guys aren't. You have a dismal record.
85% of Americans believe in God. The Democrats boo when God is mentioned. That seems like a good wedge to exploit.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:15 PM (FkKjr)
A losing game should not be played. And this is a losing game we're in.
_____
Well said. Sometimes you are at a cold table. Nothing you do will change the vibe. You just need to move to a new table. Fiscal cliff = new blackjack table. Maybe we will have better luck with that dealer.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:16 PM (gmeXX)
I have studied serial killers since I was 9....
Monster is "meh."
Never seen Reindeer Games.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:16 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at November 29, 2012 01:17 PM (Dll6b)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:17 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (sxk7T)
Certainly not. It's keeping me warm.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:18 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:18 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at November 29, 2012 05:03 PM (dGtaD)
Yes! These methods are what we need to be doing. Hurt those bastards financially. Make them scream about taxes and we will be able to shut up about them.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:18 PM (bb5+k)
It doesn't matter anymore. This is what we know. We have lost two straight elections nominating rich aristocratice white moderates. We probably shouldn't nominate a third. Basically that eliminates Jeb, but all the other potential front runners are probably ok.
Now back to letting it burn.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 05:14 PM (gmeXX)
Because replacing a rich white moderate with a rich white conservative would cause the silent majority to all of a sudden rise up?
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 01:18 PM (BBlzg)
ACE!.....please....please....please fix the blog.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:19 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 01:19 PM (iy7de)
Posted by: USS Diversity at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (85EaA)
If you are flush in cash, you haven't been paying attention.
Firearms and Liquor should retain their value.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:19 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 05:18 PM (BBlzg)
You're right. Let's not try anything different.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:19 PM (FkKjr)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 01:20 PM (QGyiB)
"good night you princes" or whatever he said
Spider House Rules
Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 01:20 PM (z9HTb)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (FkKjr)
Satan himself believes in God. Not good enough.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 01:20 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 01:20 PM (LlEp9)
In other words, not spending money on something there's no longer a need or plan to spend money on. They'll claim having agreed to hundreds of billions in painful spending cuts without lifting a finger. Because they're so darned bi-partisan and reasonable, you see.
Then, they'll blame Republicans for hurting The Children with their "extreme" cuts and negotiating in bad faith should they insist on anything more.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 05:05 PM (SY2Kh)
First sensible thing i've ever seen out of you.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (bb5+k)
Calling the bluff... there is no 'cliff'.
This is not the cliff you're looking for. More like a small speed bump.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (EGPJQ)
Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (LlEp9)
How about we stop pretending our car that has an engine that won't start will be just fine with a new coat of paint and a wax job.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: SFGoth at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (dZ756)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (wDBIL)
Posted by: katya the designated driver at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (DoZD+)
-----------------------------------------------------
The MFM is only one pillar of this clusterfuck. They couldn't get away with what they're reporting if it weren't for all of the mal-educated fuckwits out there.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 01:21 PM (oy/E2)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (FrJ3o)
Bottom line is, I'm sick of FiscCons claiming that they are the path to electoral victory. You guys aren't. You have a dismal record.
_____
I think that is the point socons want to express. Most so cons are big fiscons. In fact in politics, in general the most fiscally conservative politicians also tend to be the most socially conservative. (Not automatic - just in general).
Why can't we be both. And even if you don't support the other, why can't both groups recognize that they need each other. Seperate they will never get either of their agenda passed. Together they can.
But the commenter is right, those of us who are socon (even if we are as fiscon as anyone else) get tired of the sole fiscon members blaming only the socons for every electoral loss.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (gmeXX)
It doesn't matter anymore. This is what we know. We have lost two straight elections nominating rich aristocratice white moderates. We probably shouldn't nominate a third. Basically that eliminates Jeb, but all the other potential front runners are probably ok.
Now back to letting it burn."
Considering Santorum lost his last Senate election by nearly 20 points, I really don't think it's a stretch to think he'd get clobbered in a landslide.
Imagine after Akin's comments having Santorum explain his position that women who are raped and impregnated shouldn't have access to an abortion. It would be a "Michael Dukakis" moment.
I will concede that Romney being ultra wealthy hurt, but I'd take that punch in the face over Santorum any day, and Democrats use that playbook every election. if we nominated a homeless guy they'd still say he's a tool of the rich.
Pawlenty probably had the best chance to connect with more downtrodden voters, but our Party is the Stupid Party that is easily distracted by shiny things like Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (sxk7T)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (QGyiB)
I believe she did.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (FkKjr)
How about we stop trying to jam a round pegs into the square hole that is the electorate.
The problem is you think the square is actually a triangle and we just need to move on from circles.
It's a square.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (BBlzg)
I don't think so.....
http://tinyurl.com/c92w7p6
NSFW [and also disturbing]
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:22 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (jUytm)
No, they'd just have had ads 24/7 talking about Satan Pills and rape abortions.
And Santorum would've gladly taken the bait and chased every contraception / "how old is the Earth?" squirrel that they sent his way.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (LpQbZ)
with him that made so many of you CHOOSE THE AUTHOR OF OBAMACARE for our nominee.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (FrJ3o)
Did you work for the Dems in writing bumpersticker lies? If not, you missed an opportunity.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (kdfQ/)
I saw this posted today:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Nov. 28, 2012
* U.S. Tax revenue:
2,437,000,000,000
* Fed budget:
$3,545,000,000,000
* New
debt: $1,107,000,000,000
*
National debt: $16,299,000,000,000 (next debt ceiling $16,394...)
* Interest paid on this year deficit:
$260,100,000,000
* Not so
recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
* Proposed tax increase ($250,000 and above) $90,000,000,000 to
avoid fiscal cliff
*National
debt Obama's first day: $10,600,000,000,000
Overwhelming?
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a
household budget:
*
Annual family income: $24,370
* Money the family spent: $35,545 ($97.38 a day)
* New debt on the credit card: $11,175
* Outstanding balance on the credit card:
$162,299 (max set for C/C $162,394)
* Interest paid for this years credit card: $2,601 ( it is hard to
believe it will stay here when we max out our C/C)
* Hard to make drastic family cuts $0, last known
$385
* Pops working over
time to help with the bills $900 (9.24 days worth of bills)
* Added to credit card last 3.9 years
$56,990 (35% of total)
Of course no mention of the elephant in
the room!
*Total unfunded
liabilities: $121,656,000,000,000 (this is more then all the
printed money in the world)
*Owe
household budget for retirement: $1,216,560
To bad the youth can
not comprehend what this crushing debt is going to do to their
future!
Posted by: Phil at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (mcuZa)
You have to reduce the url using Tiny URL or Bitly first
then you can't have an embedded hyperlink it must be plaintext.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Pentangle at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (Sa7VV)
The nice thing about Free Shit Army is it doesn't grasp what E Tools are for...I think the Japanese 50mm Knee mortar would be more than adequate.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:23 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (0q2P7)
Sitting in the car and hoping it catches fire isn't going to be very useful either.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:24 PM (FkKjr)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid
"Hi, I have a court order allowing me to seize your X for nonpayment...."
Posted by: SFGoth at November 29, 2012 01:24 PM (dZ756)
you know who looks good topless?
Wednesday Addams.
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (eG4bU)
I looked her up, not being familiar with the name, and in all the pictures I find she looks to be around 12. How skeeved should I be by your comment?
Posted by: Grey Fox at November 29, 2012 01:24 PM (iK4hL)
Yup, did all that. And no hyperlink, and the fucking software still gave me that bullshit "long strings of text" message.
I think it's because I am Jewish.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:25 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:25 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:25 PM (FrJ3o)
The difference is, you had some VERY high profile Senate races that were lost purely because of SoCon nuttiness, and Democrats ran with that across the country to paint all Republicans that way.
I don't remember a FiCon losing a Senate race because he said something stupid like he wanted to shut down all public schools.
Will you at least concede that the "Akin" wing of the Party needs to go?
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 01:25 PM (sxk7T)
then you can't have an embedded hyperlink it must be plaintext.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (0q2P7)
SCOAMF.US!!!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 01:25 PM (UK9cE)
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (BBlzg)
And if we talk about jobs and gas prices, the elections' a lock, right?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (FkKjr)
Is it insured?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (0q2P7)
eh sorta I actually feel more of that angst and dread at the human condition when watching the news or the SotU address....
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (zpqa2)
_________________________________________________
Why would people who work for liberals follow conservative media?
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:26 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (LlEp9)
Or Racism.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:27 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (FrJ3o)
My wish is that socons like you would not label any other socons like me that don't agree with you 100% as something other than a socon.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:27 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (0q2P7)
Collision only.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 01:27 PM (FkKjr)
Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 01:27 PM (LlEp9)
Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (kdfQ/)
the term 'fiscal cliff' is starting to piss me off. Can't we have a serious talk about policy without a cute name. Does all legislation need a awesome acronym? Is this the media being stupid? Does the public need a simple name to keep from being discombobulated?
You want to know what the fiscal cliff is? $16T in debt. $1T+ deficit spending each year. 51% of population wanting to suck on the teat of Uncle Sugar Daddy. We are over the fiscal cliff. Too bad we can't talk about it like grown-ups.
Posted by: California Red at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (Ln+8k)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (sxk7T)
__
I like that plan. For once, GOP, live up to your SCM rep, be the pricks that Trandrea Mitchell knows you are. I also like wheatie's idea to revert to the CLINTON tax rates.
Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (1Jaio)
I think that is the point socons want to express. Most so cons are big fiscons. In fact in politics, in general the most fiscally conservative politicians also tend to be the most socially conservative. (Not automatic - just in general).
--------------------------------------------------
I'll say it again. There is no possible way for this nation to be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. It just can't be done.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (oy/E2)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:28 PM (FrJ3o)
Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick at November 29, 2012 01:29 PM (dM1NM)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 01:29 PM (e0xKF)
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (oy/E2)
The Education Unions (and other government employees) may be the haft of the spear, but the tip is the Media. We need to blunt the tip before we worry about the haft.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:29 PM (bb5+k)
That's right. George Miller directed the three original Mad Max movies andHappy Feet 1 and 2. Now he's returning to the Mad Max franchise.
What the hell is happening to our planet?
Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 01:29 PM (R18D0)
If he would have said those words prior to being nominated he would have never have been nominated. So what the hell do you want. We tried to expel the crazy when we found it, it was just too late.*
*(You are dead to me Huckabee, your arrogant ass cost us a Senate seat, and as close as it was, possibly the Presidency)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:29 PM (0q2P7)
$260,100,000,000
about $71 per month per every man, woman and child.
Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 01:30 PM (z9HTb)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (0q2P7)
>>Collision only.
How about running it off a cliff then? We could always go back and say we just couldn't avoid it.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 01:30 PM (0q2P7)
@212 "People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst."
Right.
As opposed to our present trajectory towards that shining city on the hill.
I used to fear the burn too. No more.
Posted by: Jaws at November 29, 2012 01:30 PM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 01:31 PM (e0xKF)
85% of Americans believe in God. The Democrats boo when God is mentioned. That seems like a good wedge to exploit.
________________________________________
85% "believe" in God and then that same 85% does everything the bible says not to do.
People may believe in some higher being but this isn't what they care about when it comes to voting. People care about money. Those that make it want to keep it. Those that don't make it want to steal it from those that do.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:31 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:24 PM (FkKjr)
It might alert the fuckwad riders in the car that the engine is about to blow.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:32 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: SFGoth at November 29, 2012 05:24 PM (dZ756)
I will be long gone by the time the doorbell rings, my friend...
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:32 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:33 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 01:33 PM (wDBIL)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 05:31 PM (e0xKF)
What an overrated actor. I just saw him in Glengarry Glen Ross on Broadway, and he chewed it up and spit it out and irritated the fuck out of me.
Standing ovation? My ass. I sat and glowered.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:33 PM (GsoHv)
What the hell is happening to our planet?
---
Our feet aren't happy anymore?
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 01:33 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 05:25 PM (sxk7T)
Not at all. They just need to be apprised that most of the nation regards some of their opinions as sheer nuttiness.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (e0xKF)
@Not a Libertarian
As a Catholic who agrees with Santorum that Contraceptive use is a Mortal Sin that will send you to Hell, I am confident in my belief that Santorum being open about his religion would have done him any favors given that your average Catholic thinks such a belief in lunacy.
Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (BBlzg)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (jUytm)
---
And not just any money. Free money.
Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 01:34 PM (R18D0)
@212 "People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.
You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst."
-----------------------------------------------
I'll tell you what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of all the dictators around the world licking their chops, waiting for this country to fall. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 01:35 PM (oy/E2)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 05:25 PM (sxk7T)
And that reporters who ask such questions need to be beaten down until they can no longer stand up. (Without answering the question either.)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:35 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:33 PM (wDBIL
FIFY
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:35 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Utah at November 29, 2012 01:35 PM (r/P49)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 01:36 PM (jUytm)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 01:36 PM (wDBIL)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 29, 2012 01:36 PM (3Y7RV)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:36 PM (FrJ3o)
I'll say it again. There is no possible way for this nation to be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. It just can't be done.
____________________________
This is absurd. I'm as fiscally conservative as they come. I also like to smoke pot, I'm pro-choice, I had sex about 10 years before marriage and as far as same sex marriage is concerned...who gives a fuck?
If Republicans as a party made a pledge for the next 10 years to never utter the word abortion or "gay marriage", we'd never lose an election again.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:37 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 01:37 PM (e0xKF)
I'll say it again. There is no possible way for this nation to be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative. It just can't be done.
Posted by: Soona at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (oy/E2)
I agree. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke were not only contemporaries, but close personal friends. Their philosophies dovetail synergistcally by design.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:38 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (FrJ3o)
That's the reason Romney lost?
I doubt it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 01:38 PM (GsoHv)
Whoa! Heat came out after Scent of a Woman.
Dang. Now I may need to watch Heat tonight.
Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 01:38 PM (R18D0)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 29, 2012 01:39 PM (CxJM2)
The problem isn't SoCons who are also FisCons. It's that for too many SoCons, social issues are the only issues that matter.
A big government populist like Huckabee? A True Conservative because he talks about God and abortion more than the others. Deficits? Nah, let's talk abortion, God and Family Values 24/7.
It doesn't matter that the other candidates are also pro-life, against gay marriage, etc. Their fiscal positions, qualifications, or electability likewise don't matter if they don't pray as loudly and publicly as the True Conservative.
I'm more than a little tired of the SoCons whining that they're being ignored. How many pro-abortion or pro-gay marriage Republican presidents have there been? Or even candidates for that matter?
The fact is that we lost two easy Senate seats on social issue blunders that also damaged the Republican brand. Of course there's going to be a little backlash.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 01:40 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Tutu at November 29, 2012 01:40 PM (r4GuR)
I'm not afraid...I'm just trying to figure out which Blue coastal town is gonna have a sunny day at 2am...
my money is on Boston.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:40 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 29, 2012 01:40 PM (3Y7RV)
Countries voting no or abstaining included the US, Germany, Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia.
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 05:34 PM (e0xKF)
You mean the more sane countries.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:41 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: mpfs at November 29, 2012 01:41 PM (iYbLN)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 01:42 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: Baldy at November 29, 2012 01:42 PM (opS9C)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 01:42 PM (jfUIE)
We don't live in a perfect world. Republican nirvana is not going to commence tomorrow no matter how hard I wish it would. I don't like the tax increases on our most productive citizens in the "fiscal cliff" scenario, but I like the fact that we aren't going to pretend that we can underfund Social Security by cutting payroll taxes, and I like the fact that letting that cut expire gets everyone some skin in the game. If taxes are going to be raised, the pain needs to be shared. I like the spending cuts other than defense, although they don't go far enough, and it appears that the price of getting them will be to cut defense as well. So be it. The only way we are legitimately going to maintain ourselves as a superpower will be to get our fiscal house in order. It doesn't make much sense to borrow money from China to build a blue-water navy to fight China.
I also like removing the disincentive to work that extended unemployment benefits creates.
Finally, time doesn't stop on 1/1/13. There are probably parts of the fiscal cliff that could get fixed by new legislation fairly quickly, like the higher taxes on investment income and capital gains and the estate tax.
This is a long-winded way of saying that going off the fiscal cliff wouldn't be the end of the world and might make us get serious about doing something about the deficit.
Call the bluff. And then refuse to raise the debt ceiling. I like it.
Posted by: The Regular Guy at November 29, 2012 01:43 PM (qHCyt)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 01:43 PM (FrJ3o)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 01:44 PM (zpqa2)
No what is stupid is losing elections year after year because of morons like Akin and Mourdock. We lost this election 51-48. We needed to peel off 2% from Obama to win. There are A TON of fiscally center-right people out there who would have voted Romney had it not been for the lunatic fringe like Akin.
The circles I run it are exactly that. Middle of the road, apolitical types who don't like the fiscal policies of the left but are scared to death of Republicans because of social issues. I don't know how many times I've heard people say they'd consider voting Republican but can't because of abortion or same sex marriage.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:44 PM (HDgX3)
Why are the only options a deal or the cliff?
Let the Democrats have what they want, while washing our hands of it. Let their bill (if they have one) go through without blocking it in the Senate. Just have every Republican vote 'no'.
Posted by: Martin at November 29, 2012 01:44 PM (MSrqi)
Romney is as much as a social conservative as he is a fiscal conservative. It wasn't the fiscal side of the race we lost but the social side more specifically the abortion, gay marriage and contraception issues. The uniformed electorate think the Republicans are Puritans and will enforce moral laws on you. That is why we lose the 18-24 vote. The dem created 'war on women' is why we lost the single woman vote.
That said, I don't want our candidates to compromise on those issues. I want the electorate to come around to those issues. That is a cultural issue and not a political issue.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:45 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 01:45 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (1dwWo)
You are too short-sighted. A little pain now will prevent a massive loss of life later.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:46 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp
This.
Posted by: mpfs - sick and tired and sick at November 29, 2012 01:47 PM (iYbLN)
This is absurd. I'm as fiscally conservative as they come. I also like to smoke pot, I'm pro-choice, I had sex about 10 years before marriage and as far as same sex marriage is concerned...who gives a fuck?
If Republicans as a party made a pledge for the next 10 years to never utter the word abortion or "gay marriage", we'd never lose an election again
_______________
Good for you. I assume you always vote conservative still? The GOP could get rid of the abortion issue. My guess is they would immediately lose a huge part of its coalition. Of course it would not be picked up in any way. So they would simply lose more elections. Or the GOP could appeal to voters who may vote for them because they are pro-life even though they con't care about the debt or deficit. Then once voted in power, maybe the GOP could try to enact fiscally conservative policies. I'll go with that approach.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:48 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (FrJ3o)
And that's a very abbreviated explanation. I have long argued with Libertarians. They can't think past the immediate vicinity of their actions. They don't see the bigger picture.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:48 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 01:48 PM (1dwWo)
Actually, it will more than likely be much harder.
I saw the graph.
$300,000 income 11% tax hike
$15,000 income 43% tax hike.
I want all the O voters I know (see above "lack of work" people) to take it up the @ss hard with a long, spikey sandy sword.
/on the positive side, I will enjoy it when SMOD comes in a few weeks and I get to kill hippies trespassing on my property.
Posted by: Shibumi a french model at November 29, 2012 01:48 PM (z63Tr)
Romney is as much as a social conservative as he is a fiscal conservative.
------------------
Correct, he is neither socially conservative nor fiscally conservative.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:50 PM (gmeXX)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:44 PM (HDgX3)
And yet they don't realize that the social issue republicans will only annoy them. The Liberal Democrats will enact policies that will ultimately murder and enslave them.
Let's see. Annoyed v Dead. Tough call, isn't it?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:50 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: richard at November 29, 2012 01:50 PM (eOdp2)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (1dwWo)
You have a different definition of patriotism than we do. Always have and always will. If our forefathers were like you this land would be called New Britain. Anti-american punk.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:50 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 01:52 PM (gKzBE)
Bohner, Reid, and O(I can't not defile his name)fucker, all signed on to this bill that they now want to call the fiscal cliff. It is not. It is their agreement and the law. They did it, they own it, let it live. There is no more to discuss.
I grew up during the jack ass hippies and viet nam demonstrators days and will not tolerate rioters running free again.
Bring on the burn, the Oshit voters will be the ones in the streets, "rioting" for the sake of the loot.
No justice from government, that is a farce corrupted by the law professionals. Civilized men are required to deliver justice.
Everyone needs a line in the sand. This is mine.
Posted by: ExPat Patriot at November 29, 2012 01:52 PM (LPbig)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (gmeXX)
You are neither witty or wise.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 01:52 PM (m2CN7)
HoeLaff is pissed off because the people who get rocketed for a living are getting past their "rally round the flag boys SCOAMF needs a photoop and free shit army needs more dimes..." instincts.
I plan to be just as patriotic as John Kerry and Barry Choom were.
Fuck you democrats.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:54 PM (LRFds)
The circles I run it are exactly that. Middle of the
road, apolitical types who don't like the fiscal policies of the left
but are scared to death of Republicans because of social issues. I don't
know how many times I've heard people say they'd consider voting
Republican but can't because of abortion or same sex marriage.
________________
There is probably some truth to that of course, but I thik a lot of people use the socon issue as cover when in reality they wouldn't vote GOP anyway because they don't want to cut any spending anyway. The people I know who say those things, when you grill them, they never want to cut a dime. They claim to be a fiscon, but really aren't. In their mind they are responsible but it is the social policies that prevent them from voting for the GOP. In reality they want big government like all the other liberals.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 01:55 PM (gmeXX)
It is very difficult to maintain a self-reliant people when the culture and laws governing the state encourage single-motherhood. When you have an artificially-high number of orphans who need taking care of, voters elect collectivists who promise to handle it all. That's just what happens.
Same-sex marriage divorces biological parental-bonds from "marriage" by making child-bearing irrelevant to the institution. If powerful activists can convince society that the man-woman relationship is meaningless, they can convince society that the mother-child, father-child relationship is meaningless too.
That's how it affects "you".
________________________________________________
Give me a break. The divorce rate among straight people is north of 50%. You don't think that hurts kids? And who has convinced society that man-woman relationships are meaningless? I want to throw something at my laptop when I read garbage like this.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:55 PM (HDgX3)
HoeLaff and Whoredan are all in on Patriotism now that they are in charge.
The fuckhead left from 2001-2009 burned that out of me.
Fuck you democrats there is no nation.
Let it burn.
I hate SCOAMF and i wouldn't piss on you were you afire unless my bladder held gasoline.
Fuck socialism and all who take from those who make.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 01:57 PM (LRFds)
And yet they don't realize that the social issue republicans will only annoy them. The Liberal Democrats will enact policies that will ultimately murder and enslave them.
Let's see. Annoyed v Dead. Tough call, isn't it?
____________________________________________________________
To many women lack of access to abortion is more than an annoyance.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 01:57 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (1dwWo)
What we have been fighting to prevent for decades, and what we have worked hard to inform everyone regarding, despite our best efforts is now going to come to pass. Why should it be unreasonable for us to be eager for the spoiled and foolish child to get his long averted spanking?
It is now in the best interest of the Nation for it to quickly suffer the consequences of it's foolishness. I believe that the decent folk of the country are much better suited to weather the storm than are the irresponsible and the decadent. Sometimes a fire sweeps the prairie.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 01:57 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (HDgX3
Even assuming that that is true (and it is a dubious statistic at best, as has been noted many previous times), is your solution to a housefire is to throw gasoline on the flames? Socons are quite aware of the problem, and have been trying to address it for decades.
Posted by: Grey Fox at November 29, 2012 02:00 PM (iK4hL)
The problem isn't SoCons who are also FisCons. It's that for too many SoCons, social issues are the only issues that matter.
A big government populist like Huckabee? A True Conservative because he talks about God and abortion more than the others. Deficits? Nah, let's talk abortion, God and Family Values 24/7.
_______________________________________________
DING DING DING!
I'd have no problem with a fiscon politican who is also a socon as long as he (and it's usually a he) kept his trap shut about god, gays and abortion. Learn to act like Democrats...LIE! Someone asks you do you think rape victims should not have access to an abortion? LIE! Even if you believe a woman's lady parts has magic rapist fighting abilities, DON'T FUCKING SAY IT OUT LOUD!.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:01 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (gmeXX)
There are a lot of people that benefit from government spending.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:02 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 02:02 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:03 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 02:03 PM (jfUIE)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (HDgX3Even assuming that that is true (and it is a dubious statistic at best, as has been noted many previous times), is your solution to a housefire is to throw gasoline on the flames? Socons are quite aware of the problem, and have been trying to address it for decades.
_____________________________________________________
It's not dubious it's fact. 1/2 of marriages end up in divorce.
So are you saying that the way to have fewer straight divorces is to not allow gays to get married? Awesome logic.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:04 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 02:05 PM (gKzBE)
It's a waste of time trying to game what the GOP should do.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 29, 2012 02:06 PM (J4gw3)
472I am going to disagree with Mr. G. I think the slower, more painful method is the only way it will actually sink in. We need to MAKE THEM RESPONSIBLE for their own debacle.
--------------
No.
A slower burn just becomes the 'New Normal'.
Look at gas prices.
People were screaming about the higher gas prices that spiked back in 2008.
Then gas prices went back down to $1.65 in late 2008...and slowly rose to what they are today.
People have accepted the higher prices now.
Many seem to be forgetting how it was when they were lower.
It will be the same thing with a slow, gradual slide down the hill...instead of a quick descent off a cliff.
Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 02:06 PM (CM59X)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (1dwWo)
______________________________________________________________
America is a spoiled child. It voted for Santa Claus.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:06 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 02:07 PM (gKzBE)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:55 PM (HDgX3)
I wished I had time to bring you up to speed on this issue. You can't look at issues as individual or insular. Every piece connects to other pieces. Divorce and lack of marriage have a lot more to do with "the pill", Anti-biotics, and Government financed unmarried mothers with children than they do other things.
Anti-biotics cured previously deadly sexual diseases, "the pill" alleviated the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and the Welfare system provided a final safety net for women who stupidly got pregnant out of wedlock. The Sexual revolution was pretty much guaranteed, and the consequences (such as divorce) are a predictable bi-product.
It's all a mosaic of component vectors, and everything is tied into everything else. Like I said, I wish I had time to show you the bigger picture.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:08 PM (bb5+k)
When the people in charge figuratively spit on the Constitution, try to socialize America, change the structure of the military, concede to foreign powers and elect a President who hates America , there is no longer an Amercia but in name only.
Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 02:08 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 02:08 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 02:08 PM (gKzBE)
Fuck socialism and all who take from those who make.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (LRFds)
It is nothing but a variation on the theme of slavery. Didn't we get rid of that once already?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:09 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: restless native at November 29, 2012 02:09 PM (Qixui)
________________
There is probably some truth to that of course, but I thik a lot of people use the socon issue as cover when in reality they wouldn't vote GOP anyway because they don't want to cut any spending anyway. The people I know who say those things, when you grill them, they never want to cut a dime. They claim to be a fiscon, but really aren't. In their mind they are responsible but it is the social policies that prevent them from voting for the GOP. In reality they want big government like all the other liberals.
+++++++++++++++++
There's some of that sure. But in my personal experience the people I'm referring to do want spending cuts. They're fiscally conservative in their private lives and live modest lifestyles even though they make good money. And a couple of them are big gun nuts as well. But the religious aspect of the GOP - which covers abortion and SSM - turns them off completely.
It may not be rational that abortion trumps fiscal sanity. But it's the way it is.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:09 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:11 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (HDgX3)
Given that they chose to be put into that position, I have little sympathy for them. They should make better choices. Beyond that, it's nine months of bother compared to a lifetime of slavery and/or death if the Democrats win.
Do you have any idea what communism looks like in practice?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:11 PM (bb5+k)
I mean, with fiscal goals, there it DOES make a difference with respect to who gets elected. The Bush tax cuts saved me hundreds of thousands of dollars in money that would have been flushed down the toilet.
But with SoCons, there's nothing to show for it. If the King of the SoCons Rick Santorum had somehow gotten elected, do you really think there would be one less gay couple fucking each other, or less married couples using contraceptives, or less abortions? Of course not.
SoCons purely look at politics as a platform to proselytize their values, there's no real plan to implement it into public policy. Which is why it's especially frustrating that we have to write off large swaths of the country for basically just lip service to placate people that have some sort of wrong perception about what bureaucrats are supposed to do.
And the whole "there is no fiscal conservatism with social conservatism" is nonsense. Our Constitution's authors and Founding Fathers were for the most part amoral libertines.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 02:11 PM (sxk7T)
________________________________________________________
Gee I wonder why Romney lost the under 25 vote 70-30? It's a mystery.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:12 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:14 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (HDgX3)
Given that they chose to be put into that position, I have little sympathy for them. They should make better choices. Beyond that, it's nine months of bother compared to a lifetime of slavery and/or death if the Democrats win.
_____________________________________________________
This is exactly the type of shit that will ensure no Republican wins office for the next 100 years. Seriously folks, if we don't shut up the socons who talk like this, it's over. We might as well just make the Democrat primary winner president and save taxpayer money on a general election.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:14 PM (HDgX3)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:01 PM (HDgX3)
On this, I see your point and agree. Akin and Murdock were amazingly stupid and/or naive for even answering this question. It would have been better if they simply walked over to the questioner and pummeled them into unconsciousness.
Such questions are not meant for enlightenment, only to trap the unwary.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:14 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:16 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:11 PM (1dwWo)
______________________________________________________
Where is divorce rate higher? Dallas County or some county in rural Texas? This whole red/blue state is so idiotic since within a red or blue state there are several microcosms. Only a complete fools still buys into the red/blue nonsense.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 02:17 PM (HDgX3)
It's a waste of time trying to game what the GOP should do.
++++
Actually, it's pretty easy.
The GOP will do the thing that the DNC wants them to do. The thing that hurts the GOP brand but aids the DNC.
See.
Easy!
Posted by: Shibumi a french model at November 29, 2012 02:19 PM (z63Tr)
For what, close to 10 years now, practically all we've heard from the left is moaning and bitching about
"the Bush tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, repeal the Bush tax cuts, those evil Bush tax cuts, get rid of those Bush tax cuts".
Looks like they're getting their wish.
Now, shut the fuck up.
You stomped the grapes, now drink the wine.
Posted by: mrt721 at November 29, 2012 02:19 PM (aTlba)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (1dwWo)
America has indeed become a spoiled and foolish child. The ideas being enacted have been tried for over a hundred years, and they always result in death and failure. (Hitler 25 million dead, Stalin 40 million dead, Mao 80 million dead.)
The country is not the land mass, the "country" is the principles of it's people. We are a long ways away from the principles which are uniquely American, and we are trying to go back to the form of government which our nation was fighting when it was created. (Monarchy/Aristocracy.)
Face it. The Social elite of this Nation (the Aristocracy) want Obama to rule. (A King.) Communism is just another form of Monarchy/Aristocracy.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:20 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:20 PM (1dwWo)
Hey Whoredan there is no poverty in America that a person does not work HARD to achieve.
Fuck you I am a Veteran and so is my wife and you've gotten your last click out of me period and after your Chicago Jesus fires her while taking care of ObamaFo lady you've got your last click from her.
Fuck you I hate you more than jihadi Jim which finally makes us equal.
I felt the murder of thousands of us would force the donks to grow up on patriotism you decided you hated Bush more than Radical Islam, and I've decided I hate Democrats more than Al Qaeda.
We're even now.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 02:20 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 29, 2012 02:21 PM (azHfB)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:04 PM (HDgX3)
Turning marriage into a joke is not going to make it more attractive to people.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:21 PM (bb5+k)
Amen.
I volunteered and swore an Oath to the founding not the nation stuck between mexico and canada come hell or high water.
You turn this nation marxist I'll hate it as much as I hated the USSR.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the nation not Free Shit Army and the MSM.
Let it burn.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 02:22 PM (LRFds)
Such questions are not meant for enlightenment, only to trap the unwary."
Or we could not nominate Republicans that DON'T have the idiotic view that a rape victim that gets pregnant shouldn't be allowed access to an abortion. If a politician is too stupid to know that's political suicide, chances are they're going to say something REALLY stupid about it.
I mean, the new SoCon strategy is now to lie about their views so the public won't know who they really are. If a reporter asks a very reasonable question about their platform, they shouldn't answer it? There's a winner.
The problem is, 99% of what SoCons are after is the lip service since none of these guys are actually going to criminalize abortion.
How about SoCon Republicans just lie just tell the world they're pro-choice, and then when they get enough in Congress, they suddenly ban abortion? That's honestly the best possible strategy.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 02:22 PM (sxk7T)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:22 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 02:24 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:25 PM (1dwWo)
Fuck you let you and your loved ones carry the good fight then hero.
This gun's retired.
If Obama is the answer the nation asked stupid fucking questions.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 02:28 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (HDgX3)
Exactly my point. They cut off their nose to spite their face. I happen to believe that social and fiscal conservatism are two out of phase phenomena that interact with constructive/destructive interference.
Social conservatism leads to Wealth. Wealth leads to Irresponsibility, Irresponsibility leads to Disaster, Disaster leads to Poverty, Poverty leads back to Social conservatism. Or to sum it up.
Bad times make good people.
And the corollary: Good times make bad people.
Look up the tytler cycle.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:28 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:29 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 02:30 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:11 PM (1dwWo)
Another long topic. Wouldn't mind getting into it, but I can't stick around much longer. One obvious point is that Divorce is much more likely in places that believe in Marriage in the first place. In states with Fewer Marriages (per capita) there are fewer potential divorces. No need to divorce someone you are just living with.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:33 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:34 PM (1dwWo)
This requires liberals to carry a process through logically and think beyond Step 1. Therefore they cannot possibly understand it.
Oh, Jordan - I forgot you were there.
Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 02:36 PM (zpqa2)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 02:38 PM (YUttk)
Old news and not correct, as you surely know by now.
Posted by: carolina at November 29, 2012 02:38 PM (EFeV9)
Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 29, 2012 02:40 PM (T/L2Z)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 02:40 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 06:11 PM (sxk7T)
Positive consequences of Social policy do not manifest themselves as a budget surplus in the following year. They are long haul advantages.
I'll give you one quick example. Since 1973, something like 55 million people have been aborted. Current Social/Security/Medicare Worker/Beneficiary ratios are something like 2-1 for a system that was designed with a much larger number. All those missing workers have seriously imperiled the baby boom generation's retirement prospects.
The benefits to a nation of Social Conservative policy are real, but not obvious in the manner of a bank balance.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:42 PM (bb5+k)
Uh "yeah" no your asshammers are stealing my wife's pension shot while having civil servants with fingernails 3 feet long who are "typists" happily on their way to theirs.
You fuckheads wrecked the Ponzi scheme and stole 25% of our wage off the top...no we'll work until we die Whoredan.....
unlike ObamaFo lady.
Fuck you and the donkey that rode in on you.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 02:42 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:12 PM (HDgX3)
My first guess would be because they are ignorant fools who have been brainwashed by peer pressure and the dominant media into doing something really stupid. Not sure i'm getting your point, perhaps you can clarify?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:44 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (1dwWo)
You are closer to the truth than you realize. Cascade and Herd theory explains a lot of idiocy throughout history.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:45 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 02:47 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Tickled Pink at November 29, 2012 02:47 PM (E1Vkf)
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (HDgX3)
Don't care anymore. (Like we have legitimate elections now.) A point I constantly try to make clear is that our policies are not subjective personal preferences, they are manifestations of principles of natural law, and nature is going to be the enforcer.
Moral rules are not the product of someone's desire to order other people about, they are instructions for how to avoid horrible suffering. Just as Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp hand punishes economic foolishness, Belshazzar's Disembodied Pimp hand will punish social foolishness. The one type of foolishness tends to begat the other type. Get ready to watch the cities burn.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:52 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Trimegistus at November 29, 2012 02:53 PM (XqWb3)
We're even now.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (LRFds)
And they have always been the greater threat, a lesson which I wish both George Bushs had understood.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:55 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 02:56 PM (gKzBE)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (sxk7T)
Lying may be a respected Democrat tactic, but it doesn't play well at all among SoCons.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 02:57 PM (bb5+k)
I can guarantee you those 55 million in total would have been a MUCH bigger drain on the federal government than whatever you could get out of them in payroll taxes. I'm not using that to make a case for abortion, but we'd look like a 3rd world rio de janeiro if you could wave a wand and erase all those abortions.
Also, abortions were happening before 1973, states had all sorts of different laws, and even if Roe vs Wade had never happened, it would still be a high number. If roe vs Wade was struck down tomorrow, every state would have legal abortion on its books in short order. Also, banning abortion would be about as effective as the War on Drugs.
That's why it's a dumb issue to fall on our sword for, it's just not going to happen. Ultimately, the abortion rate will fall when individuals make that choice themselves that it's immoral.
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 02:57 PM (sxk7T)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (1dwWo)
Thought about it for years. Let me give you an example. Stalin was a King. The Politburo/Party bosses were the Aristocrats. Everyone else was a peasant.
In China, same thing. Mao was King. The Chinese Communist Party leaders were the Aristocrats. Everyone else was a peasant.
The King and the Aristocracy enjoy special privileges and the best housing, food, and entertainment. As the old Joke goes, Lenin was showing his Wife the luxurious house that they would live in and his wife said "But what if the communists come back? "
How are the Communists not the new Aristocracy?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:01 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (1dwWo)
Many times in History, a Majority just meant that all the fools were on the same side.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:03 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:29 PM (1dwWo)
Sven strikes me as the sort of man who will be working for himself rather than sucking on the Public teat.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:04 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (1dwWo)
One would think, given your predilections, that you would regard this circumstance as lending credibility to the index.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:07 PM (bb5+k)
Thanks, I am and I will.
I'd rather make sub minimum wage as an illegal alien in Calgary faking an italian accent than suck the government's cock.
Welfare is slavery.
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 03:08 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (1dwWo)
The Entire society is suffering some of the consequences of modernization. Belief in God is declining, morals that were once universal are no longer ubiquitous. Much of the damage is the result of Governmental policy that rewards bad behavior.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:09 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: McAdams at November 29, 2012 06:57 PM (sxk7T)
I would like to point out to you that despite libertarian insistence that the "War on Drugs" is a failure, it is instead, quite successful. I argue this topic constantly at a website called "TalkPolywell.org" and I think if you are a rational man, you will see my argument cannot be easily refuted.
Is there any forum on which you post that this topic could be resumed later?
I also post at "FreeRepublic" Username is "DiogenesLamp."
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:15 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 03:16 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 07:08 PM (LRFds)
It is a DRUG, that leads to slavery, and not just to the people whom they vote farm.
The Free Money Drug allows them to enslave those who do not take it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:17 PM (bb5+k)
I'll drink to that. Cheers.
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 07:16 PM (1dwWo)
Might as well wish Adam Smith's "invisible hand" should go away as well. They are both anthropomorphisms of the same sort of phenomena.
The Atheist societies with which History has so far experimented, have only killed something like 100 million people, but of course *THIS* one is going to work out differently.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 03:21 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Nuncle at November 29, 2012 03:28 PM (f+zvk)
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 03:33 PM (1dwWo)
Posted by: DiogenesLamp
Clearly not, because you've gotten your hands on the good stuff.
It's been a colossal failure just like Prohibition, with far worse ramifications.
If you banned abortions in Fantasyland, women getting their hand on something like RU486 would be like a guy getting a Viagra pill. That's why is such a silly issue to define every election.
Posted by: Jeepers at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (XDRsa)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (YUttk)
Wow. That's almost impressive how detached you are. Praytell what this amazing argument is, that successfully casts the drug war as 'quite successful' when drug usage has quadrupled during it's time and 2 states just ended it by ballot initiative, against the will of their state governments.
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 08:44 PM (YUttk)
Would love to discuss it. Do you have a forum you like? (Other than in comments.)
I've always admired your reasonability, and I think you might be persuaded when I present the facts to you.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 05:57 PM (bb5+k)
It's been a colossal failure just like Prohibition, with far worse ramifications.
Posted by: Jeepers at November 29, 2012 08:41 PM (XDRsa)
Doesn't legalized alcohol kill 75,000 people per year? Yeah, the nation sure won that one.
As for drugs, Yes, the fire would be so much better than the frying pan.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 06:00 PM (bb5+k)
All fuck ups, huh.
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 07:33 PM (1dwWo)
My recollection is that Rousseau, despite writing about the "social contract", sent his five children to live in an orphanage. It is not his philosophy we should be listening to.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 06:04 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: fark, farkety, fark fark fark at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (DrmRl)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 07:17 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 07:20 PM (YUttk)
You don't know what freedom is. You don't have to like shit, or think it's good. It might be horrible, but if you're only free to do the right thing you're not free at all. Any color I like as long as it's black eh?
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 11:17 PM (YUttk)
You are not normally this emotional in your response. I'm not interested in arguing about alcohol or prohibition, I merely pointed out that it kills a lot of people every year, many of them innocent. I have two Uncles who were killed by a Drunk Driver. My Grandfather was a Drunk. My Father was a Drunk who ran away and left his family to fend for themselves. (which we did) My Brother is a Drunk, Useless to himself and everyone around him. Another of my Uncles was shot to death in a drunken rage by his wife. (He would get drunk and beat her.) His only surviving son (my cousin) got drunk and opened the door on a moving vehicle, fell out, hit his head and died. No male heirs for that gene line. Drinking killed my favorite Uncle by destroying his health. One of my good friends is a Habitual Alcoholic and has damn near killed himself with his drinking. Had to loan him money to be sent to a dry-out/psych facility. (Back in Pennsylvania, where he's from.) Hmmm.... is there any other way in which someones irresponsibility with Alcohol has adversely impacted my life? Nothing more comes to mind.
And no, I don't want to ban booze. Just trying to make a point.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 07:50 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 11:20 PM (YUttk)
Kinda hard to make complex arguments in the comments. I can't post charts or graphs or any other sort of pictorial evidence. Also the comment text editor is kludgy and often unpredictable. (at least for me.)
If I have to sum up my argument in the shortest possible way, I would have to sum it up with these few comments. The experiment of legalized drugs has already occurred. It occurred in China starting around 1830-1940, and it resulted in massive death and the ascendency of a dictatorship. Legal Drugs destroyed China.
The Natural progression of an infection is logistic growth. (I could show you a chart regarding drug shipments into China by the British. It is exponential) The "War on Drugs" is successful insofar as it prevents a runaway infection such as occurred in China. According to the Drug Library, (a favorite reference for one of my primary drug legalization debate opponents) by 1905, the addiction rate of adult males in Manchuria had reached 50%. As a result of widespread addiction, the massive loss of economic power coupled with the loss of able bodied manpower combined to make China an attractive takeover target for the much smaller Nation of Japan. . (Who were also shipping multi-ton quantities of opium to China.)
Hard drugs act on physiology. They are plant toxins designed to kill or render harmless, plant predators. They connect with our naturally occurring neural binding receptors because they are designed (by plant evolution) to do so.
What the "War on Drugs" is doing is maintaining a holding action against an infection, that if left alone would spread over many decades until it had rendered this nation as helpless as it did China. We hold the drug addiction rate at around ~ 2% because to reduce it further would likely require methods which the American People will not stomach.
China (Under Mao) eventually wiped out drug addiction in his time. He did it by killing all the addicts and making the usage of drugs a death penalty offense. We value life here more highly than that, so we cannot use such a method. As a result, we tolerate the ~2% illegal drug addiction rate, but if we were to cease fighting the war on drugs, the rate would rapidly increase. Human physiology is simply addicted to this stuff, and the only protection from it is the absence of awareness of it's effects on ones body. Once exposed, many people are simply unable to help themselves. They will crave it ever after.
I have further arguments, (such as, if you make it legal, pharmacuticals are free to research an instantly addictive Slave drug engineered by the best minds in the field. (Something like "Ketracel White" used in the SciFi Star Trek series "Deep Space Nine." ) but they will have to wait for another time. Look up "The Opium Wars". Read about what Opium did to China, and then tell me you think it won't happen here if we let it.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 08:19 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 09:26 PM (YUttk)
Posted by: Deety loves SMOD at November 29, 2012 10:22 PM (QG3g9)
Won't happen. The population of people in the Republican Party that are capable and willing to engage in a political brawl are few and far between. The leadership (and I use that term generously) are nothing but P-U-S-S-I-E-S.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 29, 2012 10:40 PM (fJUCF)
Some substances are chemically addictive, but they only become so after repeated use and even then, chemical addiction is a simpler problem than psychological addiction. Many people use drugs and do not get addicted to them, many use them for a time and quit using them. It is a small subset of the population that suffers tremendously from such addictions and waste themselves away because they are predisposed to it, and that is the same 2% which wind up addicted anyway, regardless of what laws you pass because they are that kind of addict.
Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 01:26 AM (YUttk)
And what percentage of the population would you regard as an acceptable throw-away? Data from the drug Library says 50% addiction for Adult Males in Manchuria by 1905. 50% seems like an awful lot of people to throw-away.
Surely there is a threshold number that you would regard as too many. Obviously 2% are okay to throw away from your perspective, but what is you upper number for tolerance?
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 05:20 AM (bb5+k)
The facts speak for themselves. I have always been a history buff, especially regarding World War II. Like the riddle of Dunkirk, and Operation Barbarossa, something always bugged me about the Japanese invasion of China. It never made any sense to me how a much smaller nation like Japan could not only Invade China, but kick the shit out of it in the process. Until I started researching the History of drug usage, that is.
Suddenly it all made sense. China was the "Sick man of Asia" because China had too large a population of Opium addicts. (Thanks to the British.) What economic and manpower might China should have had was dissipated as a result of the massive addiction running rampant through the Nation. Japan knew that China was far weaker than it should have been (Japan helped weaken it by shipping in multi-ton loads of Opium) and Japan took advantage of the Nation's sickness.
"Nothing of the sort is happening in Portugal, where they recognize opiate addiction as a serious health problem not a legal problem, and let anyone smoke pot."
And this is why I don't like arguing stuff in the comments. The Libertarian community has fallen all over itself trying to report the Portuguese "Success Story" as revealed by the Socialist government of Portugal (who can't even manage money) regarding their policies. I can show you a research article written by a prominent Doctor in Portugal pointing out that the official story is an absolute lie, and that things are much worse off for having instituted their policy.
As Frederick Hayek said: "
“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.” --Friedrich A. von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 05:35 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 01:26 AM (YUttk)
The Netherlands are rich because of Geography (just like New York, and for the same reason.) Apart from that, Last year the Netherlands banned Marijuana for tourists. It is now illegal for Marijuana shops to sell their product to people other than Netherlanders.
But why are we talking about Marijuana? Marijuana is the least harmful of all available drugs. What we are talking about is this principle that people have a right to use them. It is the principle that is incredibly wrong, and it is the failure of that principle that makes the entire Libertarian argument wrong.
I would like to give you a thought experiment to demonstrate that the principle is wrong, but I don't think now is the time to do it. You haven't really addressed my argument regarding China. China was a real-world experiment. It wasn't theory, this really happened, and the results are available for analysis. Importing Legalized drugs into China was a DISASTER for China, and I believe it is the single most important factor as to why China collapsed and became a Dictatorship. Drugs, inadvertently brought Mao. (After a collapse, a Dictatorship is inevitable.)
But if you want an experiment a little closer to our culture, there is always the example of the Zurick Platzspitz. Horrible and massive failure it was. Again, real world experiment. Not theory, it happened.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bwpcnqs
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 05:47 AM (bb5+k)
Next you will tell me that Poison doesn't kill people either. Drugs are just a milder form of Poison, and as I know several people who were killed by drugs (both overdose and the violence/stupidity associated with it) I can see how the mind altering characteristics of the substance (in this case, meth and crack) induced them to behave in a manner that no sane person would have followed.
I think poison kills people.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 05:59 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: BillyShaft at November 30, 2012 06:04 AM (5UcDQ)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 11:30 AM (jfUIE)
In every discussion of politics today there sIts the elephant in the living room: the LIBERAL MEDIA. It has become all too obvious that conservatives are never going to win with the LIBERAL MEDIA stacked against them as they currently are today. They set the agenda of what will be discussed and what will be ignored and hushed up, vilify and destroy with impunity, and create the image of people and parties. The New Media cannot make a dent against them.
Only a BOYCOTT THE LIBERAL MEDIA can make a difference. Until the New Media is willing to put their asses on the line and take blowback from Liberals seeking to destroy the messenger who advocates their destruction will the people be served. ACE, RUSH, HANNITY, NRO and all the rest are PART OF THE PROBLEM WHO MAINTAIN A LOSING BATTLE FOR THE PEOPLE!
BOYCOTT THE LIBERAL MEDIA - AND TAKE BACK AMERICA!
Posted by: 7HEAVENS at November 30, 2012 12:10 PM (tuCVl)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3362 seconds, 693 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Vizzini at November 29, 2012 12:07 PM (O7Q1u)