Jim Geraghty: Let's Go Over The Cliff

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 04:06 PM



Comments

1 Math is hard.

Posted by: Vizzini at November 29, 2012 04:07 PM (O7Q1u)

2 Yes, please. This, please.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first at November 29, 2012 04:07 PM (4df7R)

3 NUKE. THE. BITCH. LET. IT. BURN.

Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 04:07 PM (Jls4P)

4 Eleventy! Let's go!

Posted by: Yip at November 29, 2012 04:07 PM (/jHWN)

5 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 04:08 PM (jm/9g)

6 There's a ledge beyond the edge!?
Throw down me axe, I've gotta riff!

Posted by: Keith Richards at November 29, 2012 04:09 PM (Fm9UD)

7 It would be shiny if it's burning while it goes over the cliff.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 29, 2012 04:09 PM (epxV4)

8
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 04:10 PM (CM59X)

9 Burn the media.

Posted by: EC at November 29, 2012 04:10 PM (GQ8sn)

10 A little mood music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD74-1G9o_U

Posted by: Zombie Jim Morrison at November 29, 2012 04:11 PM (XvHmy)

11 What is so difficult about this logic? It seems so simple and straight forward.

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 04:11 PM (sxk7T)

12 Jim's right... Mr. Free Shit and Ms. Obamaphone voted for this flaming sack of crap - time to step up and take a nice big bite of that sammich!!!

LET. IT. BURN.

Posted by: Mjölnir, the banhammer from the gates of Hell at November 29, 2012 04:11 PM (Jls4P)

13 Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 04:11 PM (GFM2b)

14 Raised taxes on the top 1% and show the country how little it does to solve anything.

Posted by: Tickle at November 29, 2012 04:12 PM (b+jI9)

15 If we only had enough rich people, this could work.

Posted by: The Washington Post at November 29, 2012 04:12 PM (QKKT0)

16 Clean it with fire.

Posted by: garrett at November 29, 2012 04:12 PM (Fm9UD)

17 The folks that largely voted for the SCOAMF have already moved on in their lives ... back to not paying ANY attention whatsoever to politics, real news, fiscal matters, or D.C. They could care less. They operate in a "feelings" based environment, and they've voted and tuned out.

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 04:12 PM (/jHWN)

18


BUT PEOPLE WONT LIKE US AND VOTE US CLASS PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Bunny at November 29, 2012 04:12 PM (bwi7/)

19 Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!

+100

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 29, 2012 04:12 PM (evdj2)

20 You know what's really sad? The tax hikes and auto-sequester won't help us either way. The spending will still increase, even with new taxes, completely offsetting their original purpose.

Posted by: EC at November 29, 2012 04:13 PM (GQ8sn)

21 The problem is the LIV has already moved on. If it isn't about Lindsay Lohan or one of the Kardashians, they don't care.

Posted by: Vizzini at November 29, 2012 04:13 PM (O7Q1u)

22 Who set this up anyway?

Posted by: i am mad as hell - period at November 29, 2012 04:13 PM (cgxNI)

23 Or what Yip said better.

Posted by: Vizzini at November 29, 2012 04:13 PM (O7Q1u)

24 Let the tax cuts expire, including Obama's payroll tax cut. Let the sequestration cuts happen. Deep spending cuts for the win. We can revisit tax rates when there's light at the end of the deficit tunnel... i.e. when the budget balances. Fiscal cliff FTW.

And please, Ace, stop trying to pretend across the board spending cuts will send the country into a recession. Find your balls and admit that reduced spending is exactly what this country needs.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 04:14 PM (1dwWo)

25 Even if we cave and give them exactly what they want. When it fails... when not if. It will still somehow be GOP's fault.


Posted by: tfox at November 29, 2012 04:14 PM (DVC2D)

26 "Also, why the hell didn't Romney and Ryan pound this? Stupid, stupid, stupid."

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 04:14 PM (ZPhyj)

27 You know what's really sad? The tax hikes and auto-sequester won't help
us either way. The spending will still increase, even with new taxes,
completely offsetting their original purpose.



The deuce, you say!

Posted by: The Washington Post at November 29, 2012 04:14 PM (QKKT0)

28 Come on GOP, time to earn your rep as meanspirited hardasses. Be the cold bastids that Huffy Puffy and Chrissy Tingle say you are.

Posted by: kallisto at November 29, 2012 04:14 PM (jm/9g)

29 Weeeee!(going over the fiscal cliff,arms raised)

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:15 PM (9XBK2)

30 Put your hands in the air, Yzma!

Posted by: Cronk at November 29, 2012 04:15 PM (O7Q1u)

31 As my parents would sometimes say, "Sometimes, you have to let them walk into a closed door and get a bloody nose before they'll listen and open it first". Yeah, I was one of those kids who thought he knew everything when he was 16.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (GFM2b)

32 Call him out. "You said you could balance things with these measures. So do so."


Jib. Cut. Newsletter.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (X/+QT)

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.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (NzBQO)

34 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 04:16 PM (gmeXX)

35 If there's a story here, I want to be the first to break it.

Posted by: Dan Rather at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (QKKT0)

36 We're gonna get screwed anyway. Let's screw everybody. Share the "wealth".

Posted by: Roy at November 29, 2012 04:16 PM (VndSC)

37 "If I were someone in power, I would make this connection vigorously"

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 04:16 PM (ZWaLo)

38 Return to the Clinton Tax Rates!>>

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 04:16 PM (tf9Ne)

39 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.


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 04:17 PM (UK9cE)

40 The burn, it burns!

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:17 PM (7vSU0)

41 I am so in favor of this it actually hurts. It's common fucking sense, after all.

Seriously. Let it happen. FisCons attacking SoCons for attacking Libertarians for attacking...aargh. Ain't getting anyone anywhere.

Let it happen.

As the media like to often point out, it's all a manufactured crisis anyway. Seriously, what's the worst that can happen? GOP gets the blame? Shee-it, that is going to happen *however* it turns out.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 04:17 PM (hNXHo)

42 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 04:17 PM (VndSC)

43
This would work if the Republicans began now telling people that it is because of Democrats and Obama that their taxes are going up.

But they won't say that. The Republicans never have the wherewithal to get out in front and create the narrative before the Democrats do.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:17 PM (jUytm)

44 I got yer fiscal cliff, right HERE.

Posted by: Bizzarro Speaker Boehner, pointing to his crotch at November 29, 2012 04:18 PM (jm/9g)

45 Hate to break it to you, but when has the GOP ever listen to us? You can yell do this/do that and they do what they are going to do anyway.

They will always sell out.

They will never get behind the off the cliff meme b/c it will jeopardize their jobs. They are in it for themselves - not the voters.

Posted by: Walkers! at November 29, 2012 04:18 PM (TYO2p)

46 The squeakhole is going to get dorked.... there is no way around this. Raising taxes will not fix this problem without cutting all the "free shit" that Choomer wants for his minions. Harry Pedrast and Botox Bitch wont settle for anything less that jacking taxes up and not cutting off the "loyal masses" from their free shit.

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 04:18 PM (Jls4P)

47 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.

So....you're saying Obama is a SCOAMF.

And so is the American electorate.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 04:18 PM (sbV1u)

48 It's all Dancing with the Stars and shit now.

Think about how Robocop and Running Man and those movies were spot on.

And is "Ow My Balls!" all new or a rerun tonight?

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (7vSU0)

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)


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 04:19 PM (UK9cE)

50
Da roof...Da roof...Da roof is on FIRE!

Posted by: I don't give a fook at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (Bf15u)

51 Let it burn. Be damned to the slackers.

Posted by: Morris the Cat at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (epxV4)

52 My look-on-the-bright-side thought after the president was reelected was, give him what he wants, then make him own it; and when it doesn't work, the country will reject the left-liberalism behind the program.

The counterexamples, of course, are California, Illinois, Detroit - pretty much anywhere Democrats have one-party rule, they run it into the ground; but the more people suffer, the more they elect the liberals who "care" so much, and keep making it worse. The cure for liberal failures is always more liberalism, and we can count on the press to bolster that message.

So then I thought, That's what a competent opposition is for: to make the case for an alternative, and convince people of it.

Yep. We're fooked.

Posted by: JPS at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (b66w5)

53 And is "Ow My Balls!" all new or a rerun tonight?

What difference does it make. We'll watch it anyway

Posted by: Low Information Voter at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (O7Q1u)

54 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

Free Shit Army gladiator fights.

Two hipsters enter. One hipster leaves.

Posted by: EC at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (GQ8sn)

55 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

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 04:20 PM (Qxe/p)

56 Cheek to cheek, ear to ear.

Posted by: Fritz at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (d8K+M)

57 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!!

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (FrJ3o)

58 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

I think this question is much better directed to the residents of Fairfax, Prince William, Loudon, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties (and a couple Northern Virginia cities that begin with 'A'). They figured it out a while back and are currently milking that golden teat to death.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (hNXHo)

59 We just got new internet at work, Morris the Cat is in the office next door.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (epxV4)

60 What difference does it make. We'll watch it anyway

Posted by: Low Information Voter at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (O7Q1u)


True dat.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (7vSU0)

61 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 04:21 PM (TOk1P)

62 BURN baby BURN Fiscal INFERNO burn baby burn BURN THAT MUTHA DOWN

Posted by: The Trampps at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (qL20/)

63 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 04:21 PM (jm/9g)

64 Indian Burn

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (Fm9UD)

65 Once again Republicans are called upon to make the adult decisions.
Democrats have no responsibility.

Posted by: egd at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (XVGEg)

66 Not saying it was right but I bet RR didn't call nonsense on the tax cuts for the rich bullshit because they figured it was a hopeless case.The American people(at least a bare,voting majority) really DO think raising taxes on the rich will solve everything.I bet you have a friend,relative or aquaintance who says it every day and rails about fat cats and billion dollar corporations.We all do.

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (9XBK2)

67 Pee Burn

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 29, 2012 04:22 PM (Fm9UD)

68 Burning: Not a choice but a destiny.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:23 PM (Hx5uv)

69 You wingnuts. It's so easy and you just don't see it.

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 04:23 PM (gCa4h)

70 Rug Burn

Posted by: Lesbian Porn at November 29, 2012 04:23 PM (Fm9UD)

71 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 04:23 PM (gmeXX)

72 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.


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 04:23 PM (pAlYe)

73 Potential secretary of state candidate Susan Rice owns up to $600,000 of stock in the Canadian company pushing to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, according to her financial disclosure reports. OneEarth reports that Rice, Obama’s preferred candidate to succeed Hillary Clinton, owns millions of dollars of stock in oil companies, including TransCanada, the company behind the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline. TransCanada is currently awaiting approval from the State Department on whether it can build the pipeline, which would stretch from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 29, 2012 04:23 PM (+z5LA)

74
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)




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 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 04:23 PM (CM59X)

75 Once again Republicans are called upon to make the adult decisions.

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 04:24 PM (UK9cE)

76 At any rate, the public does believe this ...


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)

77 Control Burn

Posted by: Forest Service at November 29, 2012 04:24 PM (Fm9UD)

78 Let It Burn.

(at least we're prepared for most of what is to come)

Posted by: blogRot at November 29, 2012 04:24 PM (chysP)

79 We're going full Thelma and Louise, baby!

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:24 PM (Hx5uv)

80 306 Ace,

I'm glad you used this post to respond to my previous question.

So let me be more precise:

At what point do you, Ace, say, "Im starting to suspect that Boehner and McConnel are not on 'our' side."?

There has to be a certain threshold, ace, where the constant capitulation and enabling if the advancement if the liberal agenda is no longer "the exception to the rule."

Ace, let's get realistic. Every single time, not exaggerating, every single time, we've seen the exact same playbook and responses from Mitch and John. There are literally no times when it has been otherwise.

Ace, are you willing to acknowledge, at least to yourself if not on the blog, the blindingly obvious?

Ace, Mitch and John are not on your side or the side of the coalition that the GOP represents.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 29, 2012 04:25 PM (svdpV)

81 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 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 04:25 PM (pAlYe)

82
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 04:25 PM (UK9cE)

83 Let it burn. Be damned to the slackers. Posted by: Morris the Cat at November 29, 2012 04:20 PM (epxV4)

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 04:25 PM (sbV1u)

84 Fire Water Burn

Posted by: The Bloodhound Gang at November 29, 2012 04:25 PM (C/NnJ)

85
I'm not sure it matters at all. Sure the recession will suck, but it won't be much different from today.

We're in the lost decade, where we oscillate between tepid growth and recessions all balancing out to....ZERO growth.

We're still in the hole in terms of jobs, GDP, the DOW, you name it.

Posted by: MJ at November 29, 2012 04:26 PM (TR60b)

86 I'mok with giving Obama his tax hikes in exchange for no increase in the debt limit.The credit card is maxed out. Time to live within your means.

Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 04:26 PM (3x3F6)

87 Let

It

Burn

Posted by: redc1c4 at November 29, 2012 04:26 PM (8MasJ)

88 Pee Burn
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 04:26 PM (Jls4P)

89 I can't believe it! LiLo got into a fight in NYC and Bobby Brown crashed her Camaro. The good thing is her Brother/Lover escaped serious injury. Anyone know what Paris Hilton is up to nowadays? Some kind of news blackout going on. I want to know.

Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 04:27 PM (jucos)

90 85 Back to the 30's again!

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:27 PM (9XBK2)

91 Do we need to go over the cliff as a wake up call that the liberal plan that has been shoved down America's throats since for decades was indeed very bad for this country?

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 04:27 PM (lGu1O)

92 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 04:27 PM (gmeXX)

93 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 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 04:28 PM (i3OIF)

94
I can't believe it! LiLo got into a fight in NYC and Bobby Brown
crashed her Camaro. The good thing is her Brother/Lover escaped serious
injury. Anyone know what Paris Hilton is up to nowadays? Some kind of
news blackout going on. I want to know.

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 04:28 PM (UK9cE)

95 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

Condoms?

Posted by: Sandra Fluke at November 29, 2012 04:28 PM (5iuEW)

96 I think this question is much better directed to the residents of Fairfax, Prince William, Loudon, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties (and a couple Northern Virginia cities that begin with 'A'). They figured it out a while back and are currently milking that golden teat to death. Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 04:21 PM (hNXHo)

Dude, do you have any idea what arugula costs these days?

Posted by: Typical Alexandria, VA resident at November 29, 2012 04:28 PM (sbV1u)

97 Taking everyone's everything will only run this fucking thing for 1 year.

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 04:28 PM (gCa4h)

98 82 -

Pssst! That's not the real Santa Claus. Didn't you notice the fake beard?

Posted by: BurtTC at November 29, 2012 04:28 PM (TOk1P)

99
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 04:28 PM (Bf15u)

100 Time to live within your means.
Posted by: Alex at November 29, 2012 04:26 PM (3x3F6)
--------------------------------------------------------
That horse left the barn decades ago, in fact that horse is probably dead.

Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 04:29 PM (jucos)

101 Sun Burn

Posted by: George Hamilton at November 29, 2012 04:29 PM (Fm9UD)

102 Over at Instapundit:

Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Republican leaders are fuming after a late night phone call with President Barack Obama was leaked to the press, despite an agreement that it would not be, according to several GOP aides. Republicans believe the administration leaked details of the 30-minute Wednesday night phone call to Politico, which is causing them to question whether they can trust the White House to keep details private, a sentiment that has caused progress in the negotiations over the “fiscal cliff” to stall.

So Republicans actually were not sure 'whether they can trust the White House to keep details private" - Jeebus, what kind of stupid is in the water over there? You thought for a minute you could trust the White House? Seriously?

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:30 PM (7vSU0)

103 Just taking a break from jerking it to my Obama posters to say again you wingnuts are over reacting.

Posted by: Olaf at November 29, 2012 04:30 PM (/YJYi)

104 Condoms?


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 04:30 PM (UK9cE)

105 Posted by: Wimmenz Studies Mager at November 29, 2012 04:29 PM (jucos)
------------------------------------------------------------
Sock fail

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (jucos)

106 I want to punish the stupid.Raise everybodies taxes,those of us on the right knew we were fucked as soon as Obama one(if not before).So,we know the pain is coming,the blissful idiots don't.We'll enjoy watching them suffer.

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (9XBK2)

107 106 Grrr,won not one of course.

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (9XBK2)

108

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 04:31 PM (UaxA0)

109 The masses are asses.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (ndlFj)

110 Also, make it personal. Our family's tax rate is going from 15%to 28%. Our child tax credit is being cut in half. This translates to a hefty refund in '12 being turned into owing the tax man in '13.

Why are Republicans silent about this? Make the Dems own it. Hell make commercials with little kids with April birthdays being told not to expect much because mommy and daddy have to pay so much to the tax man.

How can we make this happen?

Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (wsGWu)

111 Whisker burn

Posted by: Lindsay's Fire Crotch at November 29, 2012 04:31 PM (d8K+M)

112 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 04:31 PM (3x3F6)

113 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'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 04:32 PM (SY2Kh)

114 The Burnening.
Let it commence.

Posted by: Roland THTG at November 29, 2012 04:32 PM (I7O5y)

115 Eventually society will revert to warlordism and petty fiefdoms.

Sweet!

Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 04:32 PM (7vSU0)

116 OT: I see that Stevie Wonder has pulled out of a fundraiser for the Israeli Defense Forces because it is not compatible with his role as UN peace ambassador.

Whoa. Love's in need of love today, Stevie.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:32 PM (Hx5uv)

117 113 And they bought it!THAT is why we are doomed.

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:33 PM (9XBK2)

118 "I liked Romney, thought he ran a tough campaign"

Romney did not run a tough campaign. 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.

Then there was his ridiculous answer about "women" in the debates. "I have binders full of women" I have tried to hire? What kind of stupid answer is that. You don't say that. You say "I believe, unlike Pres. Obama, that women should not be condescended to and treated like children who can do nothing for themselves and who need an army of government bureaucrats to take care of them.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:33 PM (FrJ3o)

119 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 04:33 PM (gmeXX)

120 Grrr,won not one of course.

---

Spelling is a mere prejudice of the bourgeoisie.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:34 PM (Hx5uv)

121 You thought for a minute you could trust the White House? Seriously? Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:30 PM (7vSU0)

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 04:34 PM (sbV1u)

122
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 04:34 PM (i3OIF)

123 54 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

Free Shit Army gladiatorfights.

Two hipsters enter. One hipster leaves.


And thanks to OCare, no one gets a new hip. (DYSWIDT?)

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 04:34 PM (GFM2b)

124 I'm not proud to be an American in a profound and very sad for the future sort of way. I am reduced to defending basic math and economics from charges of racism or economic unpatriotism. What is it you say? Let it burn? I see it more as it is going to burn and nobody with any sense will be allowed near it to put it out. "Let" implies power not there.

Posted by: Beagle at November 29, 2012 04:34 PM (sOtz/)

125 Fuck it. Can't be said enough. Give our children overlords everything they want, and then stand back and watch the crash. Let it BURN

Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 29, 2012 04:35 PM (jucos)

126
Is Barry destryoing Boehner such a bad thing?


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Bunny at November 29, 2012 04:35 PM (bwi7/)

127

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 04:35 PM (CM59X)

128 109 The masses are asses.
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+)

129 126 I hear Barry enjoys "destroying" boners.

Posted by: steevy at November 29, 2012 04:36 PM (9XBK2)

130 90 85 Back to the 30's again!


Just in time before 2029!

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at November 29, 2012 04:36 PM (GFM2b)

131 I can't believe it! LiLo got into a fight in NYC

---

LiLo needs to lie low but instead she is living large.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:36 PM (Hx5uv)

132 Haven't we played this game before? Yes, the public are ignorant fools who believe in all sorts of magical nonsense. We are way past the time when it would have been a good idea to wake them up. Now all we can do is manage the crash.




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 04:37 PM (bb5+k)

133
What's gonna happen when people finally get sick of buying iphone 5 and then iphone 5.1 and then iphone 5.1.1?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (jUytm)

134 "Rick Santorum is a wealthy man, just not as wealthy as Romney."

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)

135 Burn! Burn! Burn!

Posted by: the Turtles at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (Fm9UD)

136 Time to stop playing our game or their game, and to play a different game all together.>>

Then lets pick Halo and we get the cheat codes.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (tf9Ne)

137 110
Also, make it personal. Our family's tax rate is going from 15%to 28%.
Our child tax credit is being cut in half. This translates to a hefty
refund in '12 being turned into owing the tax man in '13.



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 04:37 PM (lGu1O)

138 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 04:37 PM (gmeXX)

139 Crying? There's no crying in doomsday prepping!!

http://tinyurl.com/c6xftn8

Will Tom and Steve break up for good?!?

Posted by: RWC at November 29, 2012 04:37 PM (fWAjv)

140 109 The masses are asses.

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 04:38 PM (bb5+k)

141 What's gonna happen when people finally get sick of buying iphone 5 and then iphone 5.1 and then iphone 5.1.1?





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 04:38 PM (UK9cE)

142 There has been too much violence. Too much pain. But I have an honorable compromise. Just walk away. Give me your taxes, on the rich, the 1%, and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives. Just walk away and we'll give you a safe passageway in the wastelands. Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

And I will think about cutting some spending. Later.

Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 04:38 PM (7vSU0)

143
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 insidethey'll start to get a bit uneasy over the idea ofhaving the rich pay for everything, even if they're not quite sure why.

Posted by: junior at November 29, 2012 04:38 PM (UWFpX)

144 If we need to tax the 1% more, and they don't have enough to cover what we need, hows about we just get us some more 1%ers?

Posted by: Bruce at November 29, 2012 04:38 PM (qB0/v)

145 I am not sure what is worse: LIstening to a conversation about this fiscal cliff ( not that is not important ) or having to be down here in Norfolk/Portsmouth VA having to listen to "Leadership" at HQ talk about G-D knows what. That is why I bought a bottle of Chivas to get me thru the weekend.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (op9Rd)

146 Wejust want the people in Washington to stop this bickering and make these problems go away.

Posted by: Luntz's Dunces at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (6cOMd)

147 Remember that classic Twilight Zone episode where Billy Mummy is a nine year old boy that has the power to will reality to change? That's where we are. Obama is Billy Mummy and we are the adults cowering in fear knowing we can't rely on mere reality to save us.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (Hx5uv)

148 Fair or not, that would have gone a long way in attracting the voters who were turned off by Romney.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

oh wait... you're being serious here?

Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (gCa4h)

149
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 04:39 PM (jhI6f)

150
in september of 2008 i said the same thing i'm saying now...
let it burn, bring the pain.

Posted by: Shoey at November 29, 2012 04:39 PM (jdOk/)

151 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 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 04:39 PM (bb5+k)

152 Burn out the day
Burn out the night
I can't see no reason to put up a fight

Posted by: Roland THTG at November 29, 2012 04:40 PM (I7O5y)

153
it's funny 'cuz GM got away with that shit too long before Apple

the 1979 Buick Regal...now with slightly different taillights!

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:40 PM (jUytm)

154 "There aren't enough rich people.

Hell there aren't enough people period or wages even if the Gov. took it all. It's not the revenue, IT'S THE SPENDING

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (op9Rd)

155 "You can't educate voters to win the election."

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?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (FrJ3o)

156 Impossible to do. People who don't even pay taxes and collect gov't largess get $1,000 per kid.

*********

Those people are about to lose $500/kid if we go back to the Clinton Tax Rate. God dammit. Why didn't Romney use THAT as a hook for the welfare set? Arrrrrrrghhh

Seriously though. Line up the single mothers and have them cry for the camera about how much it is going to hurt them to lose that $500/kid. The Dems want Clinton, make them own it. Make them defend it to their base.

Posted by: Lauren at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (wsGWu)

157 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) (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 04:42 PM (i3OIF)

158 But...but.......the iPad MINI!!!!!

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 04:42 PM (UK9cE)

159
...this is where death panels come in

Posted by: 2015 at November 29, 2012 04:42 PM (jUytm)

160 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 04:42 PM (3x3F6)

161 My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I
remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of
all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max". To understand
who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was
powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe
and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty
warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them
all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The
thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and
talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world
crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of
fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line
nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to
pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage
war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men
were battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of
an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt
out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who
wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted
place, that he learned to live again...

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 04:43 PM (Hx5uv)

162 "Santorum actually believes Catholic doctrine"

You mean like most of those Hispanic voters we're supposed to be reaching out to now?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:43 PM (FrJ3o)

163 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 04:43 PM (jm/9g)

164 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 04:43 PM (lTb7m)

165 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 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 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

166 All Republicans should vote "present" on everything Obama wants to do.

Give the people what they want. A teachable moment.

All on Obama.

Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 04:43 PM (R18D0)

167 Define rich, then talk

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (IS2o0)

168
introducing...

the iPhone Fun Size!

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (jUytm)

169 Burning: Not a choice but a destiny.


This.

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (z9HTb)

170
Fire is the most tolerable third party. ~Henry David Thoreau
Let.....It....Burn

Posted by: jj at November 29, 2012 04:44 PM (gWO5X)

171 Yep. A bad idea who's time has come.

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 04:44 PM (ylLDT)

172
Wally, did you know they're re-making Mad Max?

It's true.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (jUytm)

173 Be still my dog of war. I understand your pain. We've all lost someone we love. But we do it my way!

Posted by: The Humungous at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (7vSU0)

174 At what point does it become "Obama's Economy?" Or will the history books just have an asterix?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (X/+QT)

175 Remember who couldn't wait to get the US into that fight: the original Progressive, Woody Wilson.

---

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 04:45 PM (Hx5uv)

176 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 04:45 PM (gmeXX)

177 let it burn, bring the pain.

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 04:45 PM (bb5+k)

178 re: "It's almost as if the Republican staffers don't follow the conservative media."

Why would they? They're not conservatives. They're Winners. Just like their bosses.

Posted by: oblig. at November 29, 2012 04:45 PM (cePv8)

179 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 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 04:46 PM (lGu1O)

180 did you know they're re-making Mad Max?
>>

Are they going to have Justin Bieber play Max?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at November 29, 2012 04:46 PM (tf9Ne)

181 Wally, did you know they're re-making Mad Max?



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 04:46 PM (UK9cE)

182

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 04:46 PM (UaxA0)

183 You know what message really worked for the GOP against Obamacare. Death panels.

Yeah, but Sarah Palin is a big old stupidhead so shut up!

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:46 PM (7vSU0)

184 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

One of those little incidentals that the "Clinton Tax Rates boomed the economy" crowd doesn't like to mention or remember.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 29, 2012 04:47 PM (CxJM2)

185 <i>76
At any rate, the public does believe this ...





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 04:47 PM (dGtaD)

186
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 04:47 PM (Ln+8k)

187 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.


That might have held true right up until the point where Santorum opened his mouth.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 04:47 PM (SY2Kh)

188 Not to burst any bubbles for those who are like me in the Let It Burn camp, but word in the financial/estate planning community is that there will be deal that raises taxes on high earners ($500,000), plus a one-year extension of everything else.

Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 04:47 PM (gmeXX)

189 did you know they're re-making Mad Max?

Oh Jeebus. If he sparkles I am going to open a vein.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:47 PM (7vSU0)

190 LET. IT. BURN.
LET. IT. BURN.
LET. IT. BURN
EVERY #scoamf voter deserves every bit of misery he or she voted for this month.
Screw 'em.
LET. IT. BURN.

Posted by: Nora at November 29, 2012 04:47 PM (RGgMp)

191 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 04:48 PM (jm/9g)

192 Hell there aren't enough people period or wages even if the Gov. took it all. It's not the revenue, IT'S THE SPENDING

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 04:48 PM (bb5+k)

193
I have to give Ford a lot of credit for having the balls to make big changes to their cars.

Well, except for the LTD and Crown Victorias. But the Mustangs! They changed a lot.

oh wait, now they look like they did in the early '70's...

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:48 PM (jUytm)

194 So,

Is there actually anyone at all here that believes Mitch and John are representative of the coalition they lead?

I mean this seriously. There needs to be a clear message sent. Not another penny in debt.

Any raise of the debt ceiling, period, requires a revolt against GOP leadership.

Posted by: Hopeless at November 29, 2012 04:48 PM (s+Cb9)

195 <i>You mean like most of those Hispanic voters we're supposed to be reaching out to now?</i>

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 04:48 PM (gCa4h)

196 You mean like most of those Hispanic voters we're supposed to be reaching out to now?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 admiredasset.

Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 04:48 PM (i3OIF)

197 We can't educate the voters when the media is the problem, the best way to inform them is to end withholding. Do not appropriate funds for the collect of payroll taxes via the usual 941 process, make everyone write a check - quarterly or ideally at the end of the government fiscal year.

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 04:49 PM (iy7de)

198 Can we start taxing everyone, even a little bit? That would change people's opinions on taxes toot sweet.

Skin in the game, baybee.

Posted by: cranky-d at November 29, 2012 04:49 PM (HDtn6)

199 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?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:41 PM (FrJ3o)


No. Next question.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 04:49 PM (bb5+k)

200
Why not...

Because they don't want to. They're on the other side.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 04:49 PM (TULs6)

201 Hail, hail, fire and snow, call the angel, we will go, far away, for to see, friendly angel come to me. With free shit for everybody!

Posted by: The Enemy From Within at November 29, 2012 04:49 PM (d8K+M)

202 Jamie Gorelick.

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 04:49 PM (A0oS/)

203 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 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 04:49 PM (UK9cE)

204 "Rick Santorum is a wealthy man, just not as wealthy as Romney." 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 04:49 PM (oy/E2)

205 Michael Jordan said he has no problem with his ban from a Miami Beach country club for breaking the strict dress code by wearing cargo shorts.

The basketball legend explained to ESPN Chicago that he was surprised by the confrontation during the recent round but seems to have no regrets about how it all went down.

"I've been there many times and no one told me a thing," he wrote in a text. "Then all of a sudden they come to me on the 11th hole and say I can't wear cargo shorts. Wow! The round is almost over and you want me to buy shorts now? Yeah, right!!"

Jordan's statement should have closed the book on this story. Instead, it only leads to more questions:

1. The round is not "almost over" on the 11th hole. You've barely made the turn. The hot dog you bought probably has a bite or two left.

2. The original New York Post story said all this happened on the 12th hole. Why the cover-up? Who's hiding what?

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 29, 2012 04:50 PM (XIRMS)

206 Repeating myself from the previous thread:


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 04:50 PM (z9HTb)

207 >>>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 04:50 PM (Fm9UD)

208 Deep Purple Burn

Posted by: teh Wind at November 29, 2012 04:50 PM (HBU8E)

209 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. The bottom line, obama might own it, but we will all suffer for years to come.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 29, 2012 04:50 PM (op9Rd)

210
MAD MAX: Fury Road (2013)

starring Tom Hardy (Bain)

and of course Chilze Theron, who is in every other movie to ruin it

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:50 PM (jUytm)

211

"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 04:51 PM (xmffn)

212 People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.

You get Napoleon at best and Bolsheviks at worst.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 04:51 PM (kdfQ/)

213 I have been saying this to anyone who will listen since election night. Give Obama everything he asks for. Don't give him any opportunity to say, "I could have fixed it except for those damn Republicans." Make him own it.

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 04:51 PM (SEkXG)

214 Nobody could hope to match Dennehy as the Thunderdome.

Fuck it its all CGI now. Even Brian Dennehy.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:51 PM (7vSU0)

215
yes, Charlize is Imperator Furiosa

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:51 PM (jUytm)

216 For those that against "Let it Burn" for the sake of your children and grandchildren, the country is not going to fly apart with Clinton's old tax rate. It will no doubt be a drag on the economy, but it's not going to destroy us.

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 04:52 PM (sxk7T)

217 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 04:52 PM (gmeXX)

218 I put it in a prior thread, but it fits with what Ace is saying, so I publishing this re-run:

Floor it over the cliff. I'm sorry, but people need to deal with the consequences of their actions. If they want to punish right-thinking people from protecting them from their follies, then so be it.

These combination plans never work. Tip O'Neil swindled Reagan. Bush 41 cost himself his re-election and started a ten-year Rep feud and was still swindled by Foley and Mitchell. These deals never work out.

Sequestration is very scary when it comes to defense, but we should look at it later. Let the few reasonable Dems help lead the fight. But it is guaranteed budget cuts. The public is getting used to the government sugar high. it needs to know it can't last forever sooner rather than later.

When it comes to the debt ceiling, it doesn't mean that the government can't pay it's bills, it simply means that it has to live within it's means. Once that is reached, possibly while the god-king is on vacation in Hawaii, they will be begging to raise it so they can spend more.

We will reach the cliff in one way or another; the free-spending cannot last. Better sooner then later. for the good of the country.

Posted by: calbadger at November 29, 2012 04:52 PM (TaWQc)

219 Muffler burn!

Posted by: Cicero Kid at November 29, 2012 04:52 PM (OOML8)

220 >>>Holy shit, a child molester is going to replace JJJ


Represent Me Elmo?

Posted by: garrett at November 29, 2012 04:53 PM (Fm9UD)

221 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)


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 04:53 PM (bb5+k)

222 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?
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 04:53 PM (tO352)

223
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 04:53 PM (UaxA0)

224 Math, like gravity, is a Bitch.

Posted by: Not and Artist at November 29, 2012 04:53 PM (uRumV)

225
Relax, it'll be good.

it's from the same guy who brought us Happy Feet and Happy Feet II...

and Babe.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:54 PM (jUytm)

226 Where is the 201x dot com boom going to come from?

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:19 PM (UK9cE)



3D printing. You read it here first.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:54 PM (7vSU0)

227 In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward
you

Posted by: Proverbs 25:22 at November 29, 2012 04:55 PM (OOML8)

228
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 04:55 PM (QW+AD)

229 "It's so funny how you seem to believe that the media would not have engaged in the same vile character assassination of Santorum"

I don't "seem to believe" that at all. Is you putting words in my mouth "getting real"? Romney was in no position to campaign against taxing-the-rich, or Obamacare because of who he was. His religion was just as problematic for him as it Santorum's would have been for him.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 04:55 PM (FrJ3o)

230 People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.



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 04:55 PM (Hx5uv)

231 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 04:56 PM (epxV4)

232 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.







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 04:56 PM (1Jaio)

233 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 04:45 PM (Hx5uv)

That's what I like about this place. We remember our History.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (bb5+k)

234 Why buy a ticket to the remake of Mad Max?


Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (z9HTb)

235 IfOFA and the MFM hung Romney with the war on women crap, what would they have done to a guy lke Santorum who is much more hardcore on these "women's issues"?

Posted by: La Raza at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (YmPwQ)

236 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 04:56 PM (gmeXX)

237 We'll probably elect a transgendered llama before we inaugurate someone whose pro-life wife had an abortion...oops, shit, I mean "medically induced miscarriage". They made the right call in my book, they saved the mother's life. Most folks in this nation are 100% on board with their actions in that matter. Seriously - take a poll of folks who favor allowing abortion (not Government funded abortion, regardless of her ability to pay) in extreme cases when the life of the mother is at risk. It's a really big number.

But anyone actually thinks he's running the MSM candidate vetting (sic) gauntlet with that kind of obvious hypocrisy in his past?

Denial. I guess it's not just a Democratic trait.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (hNXHo)

238 3D printing. You read it here first.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:54 PM (7vSU0)


Aren't those called holograms?

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (UK9cE)

239 Oh, I guess Obama did say a "balanced" approach. But I haven't seen him offer any cuts. But if he does, give them to him, too.

Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (QW+AD)

240 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)


------------------------------------------------


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 04:56 PM (oy/E2)

241
Actually, George Miller is the original director of Mad Max and the sequels.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:57 PM (jUytm)

242 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 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 04:57 PM (bb5+k)

243
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 04:57 PM (TULs6)

244 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 04:57 PM (xvtYZ)

245 We will reach the cliff in one way or another; the
free-spending cannot last. Better sooner then later. for the good of the
country.

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 04:57 PM (zpqa2)

246 The NY Post doesn't seem to like Moochelle:

http://bit.ly/VhdQ0Z

Posted by: Nicholas Kronos at November 29, 2012 04:57 PM (jeAQW)

247 Yep. It was pretty bad.

Posted by: Sodom and Gomorrah at November 29, 2012 04:57 PM (OOML8)

248 Santorum had his own Akin moments over a long career. Socons need a polished and persuasive position and talking points. You are killing your own movement on top of several senate runs.

Posted by: Beagle at November 29, 2012 04:57 PM (sOtz/)

249 Hmmm... Just increase regulatory tariffs, fees, and all the other stuff (like the little nickel and dime crap that adds up to a lot of money on my telephone bill) on Hollywood and other media providers - raise current rate like 200% . Make domestic media productions so expensive that everything goes overseas. They all voted for Obama, why aren't they paying their fair share? If there's a tax on newsprint, kick it up by 300%. Printer's ink probably isn't taxed enough, so put an excise tax on ink that'll bring 'em to their knees.

Posted by: mrp at November 29, 2012 04:58 PM (HjPtV)

250 Define rich, then talk

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 04:58 PM (1Jaio)

251
I don't know if it's a remake or a sequel.

Nerds, what say you?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 04:58 PM (jUytm)

252
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 04:58 PM (TULs6)

253 I support this line of action, but I fear that the MFM will cover for Obama no matter what and LIVs will never be forced to see that punistive taxation is no way to run a country.

Posted by: California Red at November 29, 2012 04:59 PM (Ln+8k)

254 Aren't those called holograms?

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 04:56 PM (UK9cE)


No.

3D printers will disintermediate Amazon. Need something, d/l the design and print it out from your own materials. Now, not with 2 day delivery.

Won't work for everything.

Yet.

Think Star Trek replicators.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 04:59 PM (7vSU0)

255 I can't drive 55!

Posted by: Sammy Hagar and the Economy at November 29, 2012 04:59 PM (OOML8)

256 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 04:59 PM (oy/E2)

257 The NY Post doesn't seem to like Moochelle:

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 04:59 PM (UK9cE)

258

Burn it to the ground.

And, write a smiley face with the ashes.

Posted by: black ashes are racist at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (LpQbZ)

259 "Christianity in the 2012 America is not an admired asset."

Perhaps not where you live, but it isn't despised enough to justify rejecting a religious guy in favor of a guy who developed and instituted Obamacare in his own state.

That was beyond stupid.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (FrJ3o)

260 "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 05:00 PM (gmeXX)

261 I get the sense entropy is one of those guys who uses the term "welfare-warfare state" and thinks it's super-insightful

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (60GaT)

262 Just increase regulatory tariffs, fees, and all the other stuff (like the little nickel and dime crap that adds up to a lot of money on my telephone bill) on Hollywood and other media providers - raise current rate like 200% .


State and Main had that covered. If you haven't seen State and Main, that's way way up there on the list of quotable movies. Go you huskies!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Coming not nearly soon enough. at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (VtjlW)

263 Burning is at last at hand! Day of Doom is here!

Posted by: Thula McBurnBitch at November 29, 2012 05:00 PM (dvRYt)

264 Burn baby burn....

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (9+ccr)

265

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 05:01 PM (UaxA0)

266 -

Eliminate tax deductibility for tax preparation.

If you can't deduct the amount of money you pay someone else to reduce your taxes, chances are you will pay more taxes.

-

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (RuUvx)

267 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 05:01 PM (gmeXX)

268 are we still talking Santorum really

look i don't deny the guy may've had an appeal that Romney didn't in certain areas but that doesn't mean he was gonna do better. it's not even necessarily his positions, although yes they'd be easy for the media to mock, but his tone and overall persona.

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (60GaT)

269

the rest of us can galt the whittle plan when needed

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (LpQbZ)

270 "Santorum had his own Akin moments over a long career"

I wasn't aware of Akin-level gaffes coming from Santorum. Could you share some examples?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (FrJ3o)

271 "People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.
"

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 05:02 PM (zpqa2)

272 LOFL. Yeah, and some budget cuts could cripple our economy.

The market is bad at defending a country. See: the thirty years' war.

The military needs to be motivated by things other than profit. This is very different from an economy.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:02 PM (kdfQ/)

273
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 maytry 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 05:02 PM (CM59X)

274 "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."

yes and no, not really on the federal level (and as long as "Roe" is in place what the states can do is limited)

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:02 PM (60GaT)

275 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. The bottom line, obama might own it, but
we will all suffer for years to come.

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 05:03 PM (bb5+k)

276 264 Burn baby burn....
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at November 29, 2012 05:01 PM (9+ccr)



...disco inferno...

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:03 PM (LpQbZ)

277
>>>People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.


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 05:03 PM (0q2P7)

278 160
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 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 05:03 PM (dGtaD)

279 Go you huskies!


Get me a bourbon and milk, will ya?

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 05:03 PM (z9HTb)

280 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 05:03 PM (gmeXX)

281 i'd guess more Carter-esque stagnation rather than disaster myself.

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (60GaT)

282 We need a thread (if there's been one I may have missed it) talking about ways to protect what cash you have when it burns down.

Posted by: USS Diversity at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (85EaA)

283 People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.



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)

284 Refuse to invest in this like I did with Obama care only to have it rammed down our throat Christmas eve. Rand Paul was on Beck, they are planning to do the Christmas Eve Horror again.

They'll ram whatever they want through Paul said it would be "bad, very bad".

Posted by: Caustic at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (/b8+5)

285 Democrats knew they'd get slaughtered in 2010 with Obamacare. They
didn't care. It was worth losing one mid term election in order to get
nationalized health care passed. This is how they play the game. They do what they have to do to advance communism.

Republicans will never learn.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:04 PM (HDgX3)

286 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 05:05 PM (jm/9g)

287 I'm waiting for someone to say the phrase "savings in the tax code". I always found that amusing.

Posted by: Marmo at November 29, 2012 05:05 PM (QW+AD)

288 Oh, I guess Obama did say a "balanced" approach. But I haven't seen him offer any cuts. But if he does, give them to him, too.

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 05:05 PM (SY2Kh)

289 210 soothsayer,

Charlize Theron has two really big reasons I respect her craft.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (LRFds)

290
yeah but she never shows them

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (jUytm)

291 212: Bring it anyways, and to hell with all the simpering bedwetters who wring their hands at "how bad it might get". 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 05:06 PM (qL20/)

292

If we can grab the senate in two years....

afterburn

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (LpQbZ)

293 271 "People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy.
"

Not right away. Of course not. The point is, let's get on with the process. I want my kids to see Freedom.


I think you need to recalibrate your expectations. Your grandchildren would probably not see Freedom.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (kdfQ/)

294 These combination plans never work. Tip O'Neil
swindled Reagan. Bush 41 cost himself his re-election and started a
ten-year Rep feud and was still swindled by Foley and Mitchell. These
deals never work out.




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 05:07 PM (bb5+k)

295
"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 what’s right for the economy. Obama and the democrats don’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 don’t think the Media couldn’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, it’s what the American people voted for. Let them take their medicine.

Posted by: Beef at November 29, 2012 05:07 PM (mb1uj)

296 BREAKING NEWS:

Palestinian status upgraded at the UN.



Who?

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 05:07 PM (UK9cE)

297 Todd Bridges, first to go bad, last to go down

Todd Bridges walked into a crack house and shot a guy 8 times. The guy lived. The guy identified Bridges as the shooter. Bridges walked. His attorney? Johnny Conchran.

As soon as I heard OJ had Conchran as an attorney, I knew he would walk.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (7vSU0)

298 "I wasn't aware of Akin-level gaffes coming from Santorum. Could you share some examples?"

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 05:08 PM (sxk7T)

299 yeah but she never shows them

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:06 PM (jUytm)


Yes she has.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (UK9cE)

300 In TMZofSpades news, Hope Solo's husband is back in jail.

Dump 'im, baby.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (QGyiB)

301 I've argued this before and I'll say it again...

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 05:08 PM (HDgX3)

302 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 05:09 PM (gmeXX)

303 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 29, 2012 05:05 PM (SY2Kh)

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 05:09 PM (QW+AD)

304 nd 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 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 05:09 PM (bb5+k)

305 All of this chest-puffing over the fiscal cliff is just absurd theatrics.

Boehner vs. Biden. Roshambo. Best of nine.

Posted by: Fritz at November 29, 2012 05:09 PM (d8K+M)

306 Romney was in no position to campaign against taxing-the-rich, or Obamacare because of who he was.

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 05:09 PM (gCa4h)

307 Posted by: Paul Krugman at November 29, 2012 05:09 PM (gCa4h)

One word about Dewey and you and I will have a BIG problem.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:12 PM (GsoHv)

308 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 itsspectacular.

Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 05:12 PM (m2CN7)

309

Well, I never saw them.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:12 PM (eG4bU)

310 How about this as a little out of the box thinking?

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 05:12 PM (HDgX3)

311 296, so you start a fight, get your ass kicked, then the world feels sorry for you an grants you a boon ....hard to get too excited though it is still the UN

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 05:12 PM (iy7de)

312 290 Soothsayer,

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 05:13 PM (LRFds)

313 Well, I never saw them.

Reindeer Games.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (QGyiB)

314 People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy. 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 05:13 PM (oy/E2)

315 "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."


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 05:13 PM (zpqa2)

316 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.


A bad idea???

Posted by: Harry Reid at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (SY2Kh)

317 You rang?

Posted by: Cliff "Fiscal" Burns at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (AWmfW)

318

you know who looks good topless?


Wednesday Addams.


Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (eG4bU)

319 They all voted for Obama, why aren't they paying
their fair share? If there's a tax on newsprint, kick it up by 300%.
Printer's ink probably isn't taxed enough, so put an excise tax on ink
that'll bring 'em to their knees.


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 05:13 PM (bb5+k)

320 293 Bevel,

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 05:14 PM (LRFds)

321 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 05:14 PM (gmeXX)

322 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 04:58 PM (1Jaio)

Yup. I'm all in favor of tax increases on Democrat assholes.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 05:14 PM (bb5+k)

323 Am I the only one that actually likes the idea that Republicans will be blamed?

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 05:15 PM (sxk7T)

324 "Look, I get it. You like Santorum. I get it. So to you, he was the perfect candidate."

I simply felt he was the best of many very bad options we had and I am concerned about some of the absurd "problems" - "Santorum is rich like Romney!" (paritcularly ridiculous) -- with him that made so many of you CHOOSE THE AUTHOR OF OBAMACARE for our nominee.

If you must know, I'm still nursing a grudge against Mike Pence and Paul Ryan for not having the courage to run. But if it makes you feel better NAL hearts Rick!

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (FrJ3o)

325

wait, you guys watched Monster and Reindeer Games?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:15 PM (eG4bU)

326
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 05:15 PM (DoZD+)

327 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 05:15 PM (FkKjr)

328 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 05:16 PM (gmeXX)

329 325 Soothsayer,

I have studied serial killers since I was 9....

Monster is "meh."

Never seen Reindeer Games.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:16 PM (LRFds)

330 in that movie about that orphanage in Maine during WWII, Charlieze T. revealed The Perfect Ass. Flawless..

Posted by: Wally in Walla Walla at November 29, 2012 05:17 PM (Dll6b)

331
not to be confused with Monster's Ball or Monsters Inc.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:17 PM (jUytm)

332 Am I the only one that actually likes the idea that Republicans will be blamed?

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 05:18 PM (zpqa2)

333
you mean the movie with Michael Caine?

"good night you princes" or whatever he said

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:18 PM (jUytm)

334 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 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 05:18 PM (bb5+k)

335
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 05:18 PM (BBlzg)

336 I tried to post some links to Charlize Theron's boobs, but I forgot that we were stuck in 1995 and this blog software doesn't like something I did. I have no idea what.

ACE!.....please....please....please fix the blog.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (GsoHv)

337
Didsomeone say "let it burn"?
no?
ok...
Let it Burn!

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (EGPJQ)

338 Polynikes, I've been in Mormon basements that have mortar baseplates hanging on the wall. And, those were poor Mormons.

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (iy7de)

339 "85% of Americans believe in God."

this doesn't really mean as much as you think it does, though I agree with the point that the blame the SoCons caucus is tiresome (not that there isn't any blame, but I haven't seen much evidence that the country's hankering for slashing government either)

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (60GaT)

340 We need a thread (if there's been one I may have missed it) talking about ways to protect what cash you have when it burns down.

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 05:19 PM (bb5+k)

341 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 05:18 PM (BBlzg)


You're right. Let's not try anything different.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:19 PM (FkKjr)

342 Can't remember if Charlize showed any goodies in The Devil's Advocate.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (QGyiB)

343 you mean the movie with Michael Caine?



"good night you princes" or whatever he said



Spider House Rules

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (z9HTb)

344 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 05:15 PM (FkKjr) Satan himselfbelieves in God. Not good enough.

Posted by: Nate at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (BBlzg)

345 Everytime a republican attacks Obama for one of his mistakes the democrats/msm calls it slander.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (LlEp9)

346
Cider Mouse Fools, dummy.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (jUytm)

347 i think "rich" misses the point, Bush came from a privileged background and he connected with people, though he had positives that Santorum doesn't. it's more of an image thing.

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (60GaT)

348 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 05:05 PM (SY2Kh)

First sensible thing i've ever seen out of you.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (bb5+k)

349
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 05:21 PM (EGPJQ)

350 "85% of Americans believe in God. The Democrats boo when God is mentioned" Democrats have a different god.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (LlEp9)

351 >>>You're right. Let's not try anything different.

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 05:21 PM (0q2P7)

352 Can't remember if Charlize showed any goodies in The Devil's Advocate.


She did. It wasn't sexy.

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (z9HTb)

353 If the Republicans are stupid enough to protect Susan Estrich from herself, it deserves to go the way of the dodo. (No, I don't mean the last one should be shot, but you get the point.)

Posted by: SFGoth at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (dZ756)

354 338 Polynikes, I've been in Mormon basements that have mortar baseplates hanging on the wall. And, those were poor Mormons

60, 81 or 4.2??

Because the rich ones go for the four deuce.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:21 PM (wDBIL)

355 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 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 05:21 PM (oy/E2)

356 THIS: "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."

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (FrJ3o)

357 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 05:22 PM (gmeXX)

358 "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."

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 05:22 PM (sxk7T)

359 Can't remember if Charlize showed any goodies in The Devil's Advocate.


Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (QGyiB)


I believe she did.

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (UK9cE)

360 You're right. Let's not try anything different.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 05:22 PM (BBlzg)

361 Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:13 PM (eG4bU)


I don't think so.....

http://tinyurl.com/c92w7p6

NSFW [and also disturbing]

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (GsoHv)

362 I'm increasing debt - that's one of my tactics. Borrow it now, pay it back with increasingly worthless dollars. When it goes down I'd rather be the one owing the money...

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (zpqa2)

363
Devil's Advcoate was not at all a feel-good movie. It was disturbing.

Gave you a sick feeling. The same feeling you got when watching Pacific Heights.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (jUytm)

364 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.


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 05:23 PM (SY2Kh)

365 Why is Mitt meeting with the devil?

Keep your enemies closer?

Posted by: beach at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (LpQbZ)

366 314 People: if it burns, you don't get Jeffersonian democracy. 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)


100 bucks our Napoleon is an angry SEAL

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (kdfQ/)

367
Let
It
Burn

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (IH2b5)

368
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 05:23 PM (m2CN7)

369
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 05:23 PM (mcuZa)

370 >>>I have no idea what.

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 05:23 PM (0q2P7)

371 Yeppers, we Mormons were preppers before prepping was cool. In fact, we're kindof miffed about it all. You know, the way you are when you think of something great and your stupid, cutesy little sister says exactly the same thing, and everybody's all, "Oh Honey! What a clever girl! That's a *wonderful* idea!" Not that I'm bitter.

Posted by: Pentangle at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (Sa7VV)

372 354 Sean Bannion,

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 05:23 PM (LRFds)

373 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 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 05:24 PM (FkKjr)

374 362
I'm increasing debt - that's one of my tactics. Borrow it now, pay it
back with increasingly worthless dollars. When it goes down I'd rather
be the one owing the money...


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 05:24 PM (dZ756)

375
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. Howskeeved should I be by your comment?

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 29, 2012 05:24 PM (iK4hL)

376 Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:23 PM (0q2P7)

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 05:25 PM (GsoHv)

377
NSFW [and also disturbing]

you're one sick fuck

she looked good in Buffalo '66
and some other movie where she's sitting on her bed with no top on

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:25 PM (jUytm)

378 Oh, Nate? If you're still there . . .

Do you know why I haven't equated Romney's "religious" issue with Santorum's? Because Romney is not as overtly religious as Santorum, and equating the two would be counter-productive because it isn't grounded in reality. Perhaps you should consider this in regards to your insistence that Santorum was "just as much of a rich guy as Romney"?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:25 PM (FrJ3o)

379 "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."

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 05:25 PM (sxk7T)

380 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 05:23 PM (0q2P7)


SCOAMF.US!!!!!

Posted by: © Sponge at November 29, 2012 05:25 PM (UK9cE)

381 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 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 05:26 PM (FkKjr)

382 >>>Sitting in the car and hoping it catches fire isn't going to be very useful either.

Is it insured?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (0q2P7)

383 363 Soothsayer,

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 05:26 PM (LRFds)

384
How skeeved should I be by your comment?

A lot, but for other reasons.

It was a riddle. Charlie's Dildo got it; you didn't.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (jUytm)

385 The argument against a third party has always been that it would compete with the GOP. That looks kinda quaint now, huh?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (zpqa2)

386 164
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.

_________________________________________________

Why would people who work for liberals follow conservative media?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (HDgX3)

387 Everytime a republican attacks Obama for one of his mistakes the democrats/msm calls it slander.

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:20 PM (LlEp9)

Or Racism.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 05:27 PM (bb5+k)

388 Illegal alien clown car.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cxkpadd

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 05:27 PM (Hx5uv)

389 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 methat don't agree with you 100% as something otherthan a socon.

Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 05:27 PM (m2CN7)

390 Is it insured?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 29, 2012 05:26 PM (0q2P7)


Collision only.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 29, 2012 05:27 PM (FkKjr)

391 "Bush came from a privileged background and he connected with people, though he had positives that Santorum doesn't. it's more of an image thing." True

Posted by: ConservativeCrank at November 29, 2012 05:27 PM (LlEp9)

392 Sean, four-deuce. Unlicensed "antique". Someone else had the tube and legs, and another the site.

Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (kdfQ/)

393
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 05:28 PM (Ln+8k)

394 375 Grey Fox,

He means the actress aged I hope....and yeah she is sort of cute now.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (LRFds)

395 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 05:28 PM (jm/9g)

396 BREAKING NEWS: UN Gen. Assembly votes to recognize the state of Palestine 138-9. Developing

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (1Jaio)

397 "Did you work for the Dems in writing bumpersticker lies? If not, you missed an opportunity."

That's odd. Plenty of people who know a lot more than you do about both pieces of legislation seem to see them as very similar. But I guess I'm just a closet Democrat.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (FrJ3o)

398 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 05:28 PM (oy/E2)

399 Welcome to the Let It Burn Caucus. Glad to have you on board.

Posted by: Bea Arthur's Dick at November 29, 2012 05:29 PM (dM1NM)

400 WSJ is claiming that Obama's proposed deal with Boehner would involve $1.2 TRILLION in new taxes, which caused the GOP to reject such a deal.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 05:29 PM (e0xKF)

401 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 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 05:29 PM (bb5+k)

402 They are making a new Mad Max movie. But it could be really good. It's directed by the same guy who directed Happy Feet, and Happy Feet 2! Wait... WHAT?!

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 05:29 PM (R18D0)

403 >>>Will you at least concede that the "Akin" wing of the Party needs to go?

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 05:29 PM (0q2P7)

404 * Interest paid on this year deficit:

$260,100,000,000



about $71 per month per every man, woman and child.

Posted by: fluffy at November 29, 2012 05:30 PM (z9HTb)

405 as i've said IIRC McAdams is a stealth liberal troll who flooded this site during the election buuuut

47%

Phil "America Is a Nation of Whiners" Gramm in 2008

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt (OK so this one wasn't exactly Mitt's fault but he still didn't effectively rebut Obama's argument during the campaign)

focusing too much on job creators during the convention (NTTAWT, just the extent of it)

blame the ficons

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:30 PM (60GaT)

406
Dang, you don't say?!?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:30 PM (jUytm)

407 396 TQM,

Heh....don't thank us Israel thank your cousins here in the US

Posted by: sven10077 at November 29, 2012 05:30 PM (LRFds)

408 >>>Is it insured?

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 05:30 PM (0q2P7)

409
@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 05:30 PM (4I3Uo)

410 363
Devil's Advcoate was not at all a feel-good movie. It was disturbing.

---

I guess I'm just a sick bastard then because I thought it was hilarious.

Al Pacino as a scenery-gnawing Devil is money.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 05:31 PM (e0xKF)

411 UN Gen. Assembly votes to recognize the state of Palestine 138-9

Who were the 9?

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:31 PM (QGyiB)

412 327

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 05:31 PM (HDgX3)

413 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 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 05:32 PM (bb5+k)

414 "Hi, I have a court order allowing me to seize your X for nonpayment...."


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 05:32 PM (zpqa2)

415
especially that scene in the restaurant

that was horrific

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:33 PM (jUytm)

416 403 >>>Will you at least concede that the "Akin" wing of the Party needs to go?

No

I will concede that they need to possess to a minimum number of synaptic connections.

Akin was missing a few, as are too many SoCon politicians.

I agree with a comment upthread, just do what Libs do, lie about who you are to get elected and then govern your conscience when you get in.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:33 PM (wDBIL)

417 "Al Pacino as a scenery-gnawing Devil is money."

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 05:33 PM (GsoHv)

418 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?

---

Our feet aren't happy anymore?

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 05:33 PM (Hx5uv)

419 Will you at least concede that the "Akin" wing of the Party needs to go?


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 05:34 PM (bb5+k)

420 411 UN Gen. Assembly votes to recognize the state of Palestine 138-9

Who were the 9?

---

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)

421
@Not a Libertarian

As a Catholic who agrees with Santorumthat 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 05:34 PM (BBlzg)

422
It's not that I'm squeemish or don't like BJ's.

But I had the same reaction as Keeanu, like the whole world was upside down. Sorta like now.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:34 PM (jUytm)

423 this isn't what they care about when it comes to voting. People care about money.

---

And not just any money. Free money.

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 29, 2012 05:34 PM (Hx5uv)

424 Republicans need to learn that some questions don't need to be answered because they are only asked in order to get them in trouble. They need to stop falling for all this "gotcha" shit.

Posted by: Dang at November 29, 2012 05:34 PM (R18D0)

425 @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 05:35 PM (oy/E2)

426 Will you at least concede that the "Akin" wing of the Party needs to go?


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 05:35 PM (bb5+k)

427 just do what Libs do, lie about who you are to get elected and then govern your conscience to get yours, and fuck everyone else when you get in.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:33 PM (wDBIL

FIFY

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:35 PM (GsoHv)

428 Written 164 years ago by Frédéric Bastiat:

Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but the united power of the people, organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the the contrary, to secure to every one his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.

http://therionorteline.com/2012/11/28/bastiats-essay-on-government/

Posted by: Utah at November 29, 2012 05:35 PM (r/P49)

429
Pacino last 'acted' in Scent of a Woman

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (jUytm)

430 392 Sean, four-deuce. Unlicensed "antique". Someone else had the tube and legs, and another the site. Posted by: Jean at November 29, 2012 05:28 PM (kdfQ/)

I was an 11C (USAR) in college before I commissioned. Ah, good times, good times.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (wDBIL)

431 300 In TMZofSpades news, Hope Solo's husband is back in jail.

Dump 'im, baby.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (QGyiB)


Why do smart accomplished women bed loosers, I'll never understand.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (3Y7RV)

432 "I don't remember a FiCon losing a Senate race because he said something stupid like he wanted to shut down all public schools."

Well, we just had a FisCon lose a presidential race because he said something stupid about not caring about the 47%.

Plenty of non-social cons lost Senate seats for us last month -- in conservative states, although you probably haven't bothered to notice that.

In addition, you probably are not aware that in the states that had gay marriage votes, more people voted against gay marriage then voted for the GOP candidates.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:36 PM (FrJ3o)

433 it's not like there isn't a plausible way for Republicans who take a hardline against abortion to effectively answer the inevitable questions. Of course just the fact that they have that position will close off some votes to them, but not to the extent that Akin screwed himself

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:37 PM (60GaT)

434 398


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 05:37 PM (HDgX3)

435 431 300 In TMZofSpades news, Hope Solo's husband is back in jail.

Dump 'im, baby.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 29, 2012 05:08 PM (QGyiB)


Why do smart accomplished women bed loosers, I'll never understand.

---

Hope Solo's got serious daddy issues from what I hear.

She also picked a real winner, too, if you know anything about Jerramy Stevens' history at U. of Washington or his time with the Seattle Seahawks.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 29, 2012 05:37 PM (e0xKF)

436
Nood.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 29, 2012 05:38 PM (jUytm)

437
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 05:38 PM (bb5+k)

438 Well, we just had a FisCon lose a presidential race because he said something stupid about not caring about the 47%.

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 05:38 PM (GsoHv)

439 Pacino last 'acted' in Scent of a Woman

Posted by: soothsayer


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 05:38 PM (R18D0)

440 356 THIS: "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."
Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:22 PM (FrJ3o)


Said the Cubs to the White Sox.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 29, 2012 05:39 PM (CxJM2)

441 "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."

this is stupid

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:40 PM (60GaT)

442 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.


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 05:40 PM (SY2Kh)

443 Math is harg.

But the sad truth is that most Republicans are only a couple of degrees better than Democrats. The people in power think only of themselves, and staying in power.

How many laws do they pass, that they exempt themselves from? A lot. But even if it's only one, that tells you all you need to know.

We're screwed.

Posted by: Tutu at November 29, 2012 05:40 PM (r4GuR)

444 425 Soona,

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 05:40 PM (LRFds)

445
That's the reason Romney lost?

I doubt it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at November 29, 2012 05:38 PM (GsoHv)


Didn't help. It gave credance to every talking head that said Romney only cares about the rich. I still maintain the GOP should have a STFU class for every candidate.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Wonders what Dagny thinks at November 29, 2012 05:40 PM (3Y7RV)

446
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 05:41 PM (bb5+k)

447 I'm 51 years old. I still have a chance if we LET IT BURN!

Posted by: mpfs at November 29, 2012 05:41 PM (iYbLN)

448 The "patriotism" of the right is on fine display in this comment thread, brimming over with hate and disgust for our country. I'm glad most conservatives don't share your views, morons. $0.02

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (1dwWo)

449 BTW I concede that The Social Issues hurt the GOP among certain groups who might otherwise be persuadable, regardless of my own views on them. maybe other people should concede that Romney's economic argument wasn't exactly a winner either, and ask what should be done about that?

if you wanna argue one played a bigger role than the other fine but the idea that the latter had nothing to do with the loss defies logic

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (60GaT)

450 Am I correct in saying Obamcare did not get any GOP votes in the House? I wonder why that could be true, yet in all of these silly budgetary manufactured crises the leadership cannot be trusted?

Posted by: Baldy at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (opS9C)

451 Can I get a serious answer?

I'm trying to think of how, hypothetically, if every Pub votes "Present," exactly things get blamed on the non-Democrats.
Note I said, "If."

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 05:42 PM (jfUIE)

452 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, butI 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 alsolike 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 gainsand 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 05:43 PM (qHCyt)

453 probably painting with a broad brush, just get tired of the predictable scapegoating of people who the people doing the scapegoating never agreed with in the first place, so no skin off their back

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (60GaT)

454 "I had sex about 10 years before marriage and as far as same sex marriage is concerned . . . "

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".

Posted by: NotALibertarian at November 29, 2012 05:43 PM (FrJ3o)

455 I'm glad someone recognizes how patriotic it is to recognize how far the country has strayed from founding principles, and is passionate about returning to them as quickly as possible. Bravo!

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 05:44 PM (zpqa2)

456 441:

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 05:44 PM (HDgX3)

457 Why are the only options a deal or the cliff?

Let the Democrats have what they want, while washingour 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 05:44 PM (MSrqi)

458 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 morespecifically the abortion, gay marriage and contraception issues. The uniformed electorate think the Republicans are Puritans and will enforcemoral laws on you. That is why we lose the 18-24 vote. Thedem 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 05:45 PM (m2CN7)

459 448 The "patriotism" of the right is on fine display in this comment thread, brimming over with hate and disgust for our country. I'm glad most conservatives don't share your views, morons. $0.02

What exactly, is the objection? That they/we no longer want to be obligated to sacrifice for others' irresponsibility, so they can remain insulated?

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (jfUIE)

460 liberal patriots: when it's conveeeenient

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:45 PM (60GaT)

461 The "patriotism" of the right is on fine display in
this comment thread, brimming over with hate and disgust for our
country. I'm glad most conservatives don't share your views, morons.
$0.02

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 05:46 PM (bb5+k)

462 You are too short-sighted. A little pain now will prevent a massive loss of life later.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp

This.

Posted by: mpfs - sick and tired and sick at November 29, 2012 05:47 PM (iYbLN)

463 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 05:48 PM (gmeXX)

464 That's how it affects "you".

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 05:48 PM (bb5+k)

465 456

and there's a lot of pro-life people who won't vote Republican if they ditch that part of their platform

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (60GaT)

466 "What exactly, is the objection? That they/we no longer want to be obligated to sacrifice for others' irresponsibility, so they can remain insulated?"

Partly. Shared sacrifice is what the social contract is all about. It's disgusting to see how gleeful many commentators are about the prospects of American failure. It's pathetic that your hatred for Obama outweighs your love of country, if you ever had any to begin with.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (1dwWo)

467 No matter what happens, as a taxpayer with a job, I am going to get f*cked. At this point, I ok with all the people I know who work part time and have been collecting unemployment every year since 1980 due to "lack of work" to get f*cked as hard as I do. If not harder.

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 05:48 PM (z63Tr)

468 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 05:50 PM (gmeXX)

469 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 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 05:50 PM (bb5+k)

470 I'm in agreement that taxes need to rise. The voters this month voted for higher taxes so they should get them. The GOP needs to take a hard line on sequestration. If Obama doesn't like sequestration, he needs to get a bill to the Senate post haste. Daily demand a bill from the WH in time for the Senate to act. Offer to negotiate in good faith once the WH produces that bill. Don't take a spear for the rich either. Stand up for the middle class but don't let a defense of the wealthy stand in the way of a bill that is good enough.

Posted by: richard at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (eOdp2)

471 The "patriotism" of the right is on fine display in this comment thread, brimming over with hate and disgust for our country. I'm glad most conservatives don't share your views, morons. $0.02
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 05:50 PM (m2CN7)

472 I 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.

Letting all the cuts expire will not do it. Keep the Tea Party engaged on the spending side of things and let Obama and Co demolish what little is left of the economy in stages that they will not be able to weasel out from. Because it will be impossible for the media to blame conservatives for AGREEING to go along with the morons in control.

Let them have their cake and eat it too. It won't last long. Of course, being an optimist, I think we're already past the point of no return and we might as well smile because things are worse than we can possibly imagine.

Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (gKzBE)

473 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 upduring the jack ass hippies and viet nam demonstrators days and will not toleraterioters 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 05:52 PM (LPbig)

474 Correct, he is neither socially conservative nor fiscally conservative.
Posted by: SH at November 29, 2012 05:50 PM (gmeXX)

You are neither witty or wise.

Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (m2CN7)

475 i dunno i guess i find it weird that some of the most firebreathing anti-Obama people want the GOP to essentially become David Cameron's Tories

it's not even the narrow two social issues necessarily, i'm not as interested in a GOP that doesn't provide some kinda cultural critique (this doesn't have to amount to "going back to the '50s" or w/e) and is reduced entirely to tax cuts/deficit counting

Posted by: JDP at November 29, 2012 05:52 PM (60GaT)

476 459 BuddyPC,

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 05:54 PM (LRFds)

477 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 05:55 PM (gmeXX)

478 454
"I had sex about 10 years before marriage and as far as same sex marriage is concerned . . . "



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 05:55 PM (HDgX3)

479 471 Polynikes,

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 05:57 PM (LRFds)

480 469

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 05:57 PM (HDgX3)

481 Partly. Shared sacrifice is what the social contract
is all about. It's disgusting to see how gleeful many commentators are
about the prospects of American failure. It's pathetic that your hatred
for Obama outweighs your love of country, if you ever had any to begin
with.

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 05:57 PM (bb5+k)

482 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 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 06:00 PM (iK4hL)

483 442


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 06:01 PM (HDgX3)

484 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 05:55 PM (gmeXX)

There are a lot of people that benefit from government spending.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 29, 2012 06:02 PM (bb5+k)

485 Jordan is just pissed that a large segment will no longer prop up the financial potekim give away village the Dems have erected. Conservative intervention is the only reason Liberal policies have been able to survive.

Posted by: polynikes at November 29, 2012 06:02 PM (m2CN7)

486 "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? "

America isn't a spoiled and foolish child. It's our country, for better or worse. And frankly, I don't think anyone who ever fought for this country wants it to burn. Certainly, the veterans I know do not: that's why they serve.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (1dwWo)

487 Partly. Shared sacrifice is what the social contract is all about. It's disgusting to see how gleeful many commentators are about the prospects of American failure. It's pathetic that your hatred for Obama outweighs your love of country, if you ever had any to begin with.
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 05:48 PM (1dwWo)


"Prospects" of American failure.
If you're concerned with shared sacrifice, which I'm not getting the sense you really are, you'd be bugging those on the hammocks to share more of that sacrifice instead of the rest of us always driving down the one way street.

I have no hatred for Obama, and am sure plenty others don't. I loathe what he stands for, his retarded, ever-failing worldview, and the contempt he has for us, meaning, those beyond just this board. If he started standing for liberty and leaving everyone alone I'd be the first in line for him.

Am I feeding a troll here?

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 29, 2012 06:03 PM (jfUIE)

488 482
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 06:04 PM (HDgX3)

489 @482

Unfortunately "liberal" has been turned to "libertine" by the left (speaking of co-opting platforms) and patriotism is a word they bring out as a dog whistle against us. Like "racism", the word simply means whatever they need it to at the moment.

There's no point in discussing with them. They are blinded to anything that isn't already present on one of their ever-present bumper stickers.

We think they are stupid in their pursuit of a dream that exists as a flagellum against anyone who values anything besides The People(tm). Demographics now rule the day. I hope that the individuals who surrender themselves so willingly to the reaper's blade are capable of understanding what they have committed everyone to.

Funny how The People matter: it's people that are inconvenient. And "fairness" means coercive participation in whatever they think might be fair.

Never try to teach a pig to dance. It frustrates you and pisses off the pig.

Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 06:05 PM (gKzBE)

490 I'm really late to this thread but if in case anyone hasn't mentioned this yet:

It's a waste of time trying to game what the GOP should do.

Posted by: runninrebel at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (J4gw3)

491
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 offa cliff.

Posted by: wheatie at November 29, 2012 06:06 PM (CM59X)

492 America isn't a spoiled and foolish child. It's our
country, for better or worse. And frankly, I don't think anyone who ever
fought for this country wants it to burn. Certainly, the veterans I
know do not: that's why they serve.



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 06:06 PM (HDgX3)

493 @488

Interesting. The left has been systematically destroying familiar bonds and, when they finally get to the point that they are largely successful, use it as a club against those they have been working against for decades.

Ever lived in a communist society? I have. Two of them. You won't like it.

Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 06:07 PM (gKzBE)

494 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 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 06:08 PM (bb5+k)

495 When the people in charge figurativelyspit 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 06:08 PM (m2CN7)

496 i wouldn't piss on you were you afire


I would certainly piss on them if they were burning, once they stopped moving around and held still so I could aim.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 06:08 PM (YUttk)

497 That should have been familial - damned iPhone checker.

Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 06:08 PM (gKzBE)

498
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 06:09 PM (bb5+k)

499 >

Fine. Where do I sign up to be a warlord?

Posted by: restless native at November 29, 2012 06:09 PM (Qixui)

500 477
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.

+++++++++++++++++

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 06:09 PM (HDgX3)

501 "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."

Then why is divorce so highly concentrated in the red states?

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:11 PM (1dwWo)

502 To many women lack of access to abortion is more than an annoyance.


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 06:11 PM (bb5+k)

503 The difference is also that SoCon goals are so abstract that it's simply not worth losing elections over because it's not attainable anyway.

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 06:11 PM (sxk7T)

504 "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."

________________________________________________________

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 06:12 PM (HDgX3)

505 "Gee I wonder why Romney lost the under 25 vote 70-30? It's a mystery."

Facebook, amirite? Obama is so much better with the interwebs! It certainly has nothing to do with Romney, his campaign or his positions.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:14 PM (1dwWo)

506 502
To many women lack of access to abortion is more than an annoyance.




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 06:14 PM (HDgX3)

507 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 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 06:14 PM (bb5+k)

508 "Even if you believe a woman's lady parts has magic rapist fighting abilities, DON'T FUCKING SAY IT OUT LOUD!. "

Mmmhmm. Discretion is better than honesty in these moments.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:16 PM (1dwWo)

509 Then why is divorce so highly concentrated in the red states?

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 06:17 PM (HDgX3)

510 490
I'm really late to this thread but if in case anyone hasn't mentioned this yet:

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 06:19 PM (z63Tr)

511 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 06:19 PM (aTlba)

512 America isn't a spoiled and foolish child. It's our
country, for better or worse. And frankly, I don't think anyone who ever
fought for this country wants it to burn. Certainly, the veterans I
know do not: that's why they serve.



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 06:20 PM (bb5+k)

513 "Where is divorce rate higher?"

Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alaska, Nevada, Missisippi, Georgia and Tennessee.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:20 PM (1dwWo)

514 WhoreDan,

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 06:20 PM (LRFds)

515 Why not...

Because that is something a smart, well-organized political party would do. We're talking about Republicans here.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 29, 2012 06:21 PM (azHfB)

516 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 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 06:21 PM (bb5+k)

517 "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."

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 06:22 PM (sxk7T)

518 512 DiogenesLamp,

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 06:22 PM (LRFds)

519 "we are trying to go back to the form of government which our nation was fighting when it was created. (Monarchy/Aristocracy.) "

Utter horseshit. No one is trying to do this. No one. Do you actually think about this as you type, or does this hogwash just run leak out of your brain, down your nose and onto the keyboard?

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:22 PM (1dwWo)

520 Jordan probably still does not understand what Rush meant in 2008 when Rush said, "I hope [Obama] fails." So why would we expect Jordan to understand LiB?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 06:24 PM (zpqa2)

521 "Jordan probably still does not understand what Rush meant in 2008 when Rush said, "I hope [Obama] fails." So why would we expect Jordan to understand LiB?"

I certainly don't and I never will. I'm glad you're a minority view in a minority party, though.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (1dwWo)

522
84
That's the first thing I thought of:
The roof
The roof
The roof is on fire...

Posted by: AceyDeucey at November 29, 2012 06:25 PM (8735b)

523 "I certainly don't and I never will"

Case (and troll) dismissed.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 06:26 PM (zpqa2)

524 It only takes 3%.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 29, 2012 06:27 PM (zpqa2)

525 521 WhoreDan,

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 06:28 PM (LRFds)

526 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 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 06:28 PM (bb5+k)

527 "This gun's retired."

Enjoy your entitlements. Welcome to the 47%.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:29 PM (1dwWo)

528 America isn't a spoiled and foolish child.


Bwahahahahaha.


You must be a jingoist.


It's our country, for better or worse.


See? See? I am blessed with a psychic gift. I will tell you what your dead grandmother forgot to tell you before she died if you give me $20.


You know, in the Soviet Union they had democracy and freedom and elections too, and talked about how free they were, and how they were actually more free than the west.


And I suppose simply by virtue of the fact their parents crapped them out in that particular geographic location, there were a lot who loved their country and just didn't give a shit if it was wrong, even if it was slaughtering Poles and Ukrainians.


Now put on your safety helmet and go about your rubber padded life in the Home of the Brave. But don't let the Land of the Free Police catch you doing anything, because everything's illegal.


www.heritage.org/index/ranking


#10 and dropping.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 06:30 PM (YUttk)

529 Then why is divorce so highly concentrated in the red states?

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 06:33 PM (bb5+k)

530 "You know, in the Soviet Union they had democracy and freedom and elections too, and talked about how free they were, and how they were actually more free than the west.

www.heritage.org/index/ranking
#10 and dropping. "

I'd take the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom a bit more seriously if the communist Chinese were not #1 on it.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:34 PM (1dwWo)

531 "In states with Fewer Marriages (per capita) there are fewer potential
divorces. No need to divorce someone you are just living with."

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 06:36 PM (zpqa2)

532 I'd take the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom a bit more seriously if the communist Chinese were not #1 on it.


Ah, a well educated man I see. Parochial and jingoistic? Nah.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (YUttk)

533 188 re "Not to burst any bubbles for those who are like me in the Let It Burn
camp, but word in the financial/estate planning community is that there
will be deal that raises taxes on high earners ($500,000), plus a
one-year extension of everything else."
Old news and not correct, as you surely know by now.

Posted by: carolina at November 29, 2012 06:38 PM (EFeV9)

534 I think it is funny that we are calling this a cliff....it is really a black hole, and there is nothing that will prevent us from going into it. We can slow it down a tad, but that is about it.

Ignorance kills.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (T/L2Z)

535 "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."

Certainly true and fair. I've long thought the early marriage age and high divorce rates in the red states are the result of good people trying to avoid out-of-wedlock births and abortions. Marriages in those states might be hasty "shotgun" marriages, but that doesn't mean abortion or single-motherhood or simple cohabitation are necessarily better answers.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:40 PM (1dwWo)

536 But with SoCons, there's nothing to show for it.


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 06:42 PM (bb5+k)

537 527 Whoredan,

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 06:42 PM (LRFds)

538 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 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 06:44 PM (bb5+k)

539 Facebook, amirite? Obama is so much better with the
interwebs! It certainly has nothing to do with Romney, his campaign or
his positions.

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 06:45 PM (bb5+k)

540 Utter horseshit. No one is trying to do this. No one.


'K.


Keep telling yourself that when your picking cotton for your corporate overlords.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 06:47 PM (YUttk)

541 My only concern about this....increasing tax rates across the board only affects people WITH income. It isn't going to affect the "takers."

My argument is that not only do tax rates increase but the amount of welfare, food stamps people receive are cut in half. Obamaphone program is cut completely.

If people are going to have to make sacrifices, then EVERYONE should make sacrifices. And, if it is going to burn, it should burn for everyone.

Posted by: Tickled Pink at November 29, 2012 06:47 PM (E1Vkf)

542 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 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 06:52 PM (bb5+k)

543 The rich skew Democrat anyway. Fuck 'em. Tax them until they flee the country.

Posted by: Trimegistus at November 29, 2012 06:53 PM (XqWb3)

544 and I've decided I hate Democrats more than Al Qaeda.

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 06:55 PM (bb5+k)

545 @543

Nice idea, but won't work. Most of the truly rich don't pay income tax. Romney. for example, if he did take a salary it was $1 a year. His income came from holdings - his idea was suicidal in that he wanted to increase the taxes he and the other gentry would have to pay while leaving job creators essentially alone.

Those lefties don't pay much anyway.

Posted by: done4now at November 29, 2012 06:56 PM (gKzBE)

546 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 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 06:57 PM (bb5+k)

547 "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."

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 06:57 PM (sxk7T)

548 Utter horseshit. No one is trying to do this. No
one. Do you actually think about this as you type, or does this hogwash
just run leak out of your brain, down your nose and onto the keyboard?

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 07:01 PM (bb5+k)

549 I certainly don't and I never will. I'm glad you're a minority view in a minority party, though.

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 07:03 PM (bb5+k)

550 Enjoy your entitlements. Welcome to the 47%.



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 07:04 PM (bb5+k)

551 I'd take the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom a bit more seriously if the communist Chinese were not #1 on it.

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 07:07 PM (bb5+k)

552 550 Diogene's Lamp,

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 07:08 PM (LRFds)

553 Certainly true and fair. I've long thought the early
marriage age and high divorce rates in the red states are the result of
good people trying to avoid out-of-wedlock births and abortions.
Marriages in those states might be hasty "shotgun" marriages, but that
doesn't mean abortion or single-motherhood or simple cohabitation are
necessarily better answers.



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 07:09 PM (bb5+k)

554 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.




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 07:15 PM (bb5+k)

555 "Belief in God is declining"

I'll drink to that. Cheers.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 07:16 PM (1dwWo)

556 Welfare is slavery.


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 07:17 PM (bb5+k)

557
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 07:21 PM (bb5+k)

558 Jordan, you're a fool. The "social contract" you lefties constantly speak of was never part of the Founding, never a part of the Anglo-American Enlightenment. It comes from Rousseau (and you get it through his spiritual children, the Marxists), who played a big and disastrous role in the French branch of Enlightenment, which didn't turn out too well and has been fucking up the world ever since. The "social contract" is basically the morality of the family and tribe/village, which is desirable at that level but requires tyranny to impose on a big and necessarily impersonal civilization like ours. The majority of the material our polity now consists of is rotten--I'm talking about you, Jordan--it's not salvageable. But we're not actively working to destroy "the system", since it's doing that fine on its own. That would be unpatriotic, and the sort of thing your side has long taken pride in. But you won, which means we all lost. Every liberal victory is a Pyrrhic victory. It's burning already.

Posted by: Nuncle at November 29, 2012 07:28 PM (f+zvk)

559 "French branch of Enlightenment, which didn't turn out too well and has been fucking up the world ever since"

Voltaire? Rousseau? Montesquieu? Diderot?

All fuck ups, huh.

Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 07:33 PM (1dwWo)

560 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.
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 08:41 PM (XDRsa)

561 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.


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)

562
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 09:57 PM (bb5+k)

563 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.

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 10:00 PM (bb5+k)

564 Voltaire? Rousseau? Montesquieu? Diderot?



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 10:04 PM (bb5+k)

565 #185 - O-A -Hole:
"...[t]he 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."

That's certainly their modus operandi - but what will happen next is that Oblamer, the worst president ever, will continue to fail, making promises he can't keep, and it will be even more clear that he's a miserable failure, crook and imbecile. Let him take the D's statist small-C communist philosophy down with him. Its far from clear that the DMM can cover for two terms of broken promises, blame shifting and proven idiocy.

Let it burn.

Posted by: fark, farkety, fark fark fark at November 29, 2012 10:06 PM (DrmRl)

566 Doesn't legalized alcohol kill 75,000 people per year? Yeah, the nation sure won that one.


Seriously? Cars kill people too, should we ban them? Roller Coasters kill people sometimes, banned? Shall we just ban everything?


Also - you want to ban booze?


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)

567 Do you have a forum you like? (Other than in comments.)


Not really. For politics, pretty much comments. The only bulletin board type forums I read are hobbyist ones.

Posted by: entropy at November 29, 2012 11:20 PM (YUttk)

568
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 11:50 PM (bb5+k)

569 Not really. For politics, pretty much comments. The only bulletin board type forums I read are hobbyist ones.

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 30, 2012 12:19 AM (bb5+k)

570 Once exposed, many people are simply unable to help themselves. They will crave it ever after.


Factual bullshit. Some people get addicted to anything and everything - it's psychological addiction. People can get psychologically addicted to porn, sex, gambling, hand washing, star trek, or pizza.

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.


Besides that, it really depends on the drug. Marijuana is not chemically addictive at all, period. Opium and opium derivatives are on the other end of the spectrum of drugs from things like weed and LSD, neither of which even has an overdose level that is actually achievable.


Other countries besides China, including America and Britain and other European countries have histories of legalized drugs - including opiates - and they did not become China, nor was there any such preposterous 'infection' trajectory. You don't consider what effect China being China had.


Probably the absolute most chemically addictive drug widely known to man kind is nicotine, and society has no such scenarios unfold from the scourge of legalized tobacco - although the very same society locked in the grip of a supposed nicotine addiction 'infection' appears to be banning the shit anyway, as smoking has gone out of fashion except as a scapegoat.


One of the biggest problems with drug warriors is they come in two flavors. One is people who had relatives who did sad and terrible things that make them angry and sad, so they blame the drugs because it's easier then blaming the people they miss, which is natural, but bullshit. Any mother who's kid flips out and goes postal, she wants to blame it on a video game. But 10000 kids played that game and only hers went on a murder spree. Or recovered addicts who can't control themselves, but pin it on the drug and not themselves, insisting absolutely no one could have controlled themselves because it's easier than saying just some people like you can't, ignoring evidence to the contrary.


The other is people who have conveniently ruled out any first hand experience whatsoever. The thing with these people is they believe almost anything about the drugs whatsoever. Zombie face-eating murder sprees, whatever. They have a principled aversion to being physically attached to reality on this issue so they end up in outer space. To me, your views on China and drug 'infections' are like a drugwar equivalent of Dr. Strangelove. The commies are poisoning the water to steal our essence. 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. The Netherlands have always been permissive (for centuries) and it has always been a nice place with a great economy that punches way over it's weight class. They aren't descending into chinese communism any more than the rest of europe or the US is, in fact less than any of their neighbors. It is one of the nicest and most prosperous countries in europe.


Here's the thing about drunk drivers. They can have a couple glasses of wine and hit a checkpoint and have their life fucked because they're evil and they hypothetically killed people. Hell, they can get piss drunk, 3 sheets to the wind so they can't walk, drive 45 miles without any problem whatsoever before being pulled over, and get their life fucked.


But some soccermom can plow her minivan into a school bus and it's an accident and nothing happens. For no reason whatsoever! Or because she was texting or futzing with the radio or yelling at her kids or putting on her lipstick or just because she blinked at the wrong time. No blame.


It's easy to hate on a bottle and blame booze for everyone dying because guess what, we can ban boozed driving and that means we can ban death! We can end all these yearly fatalities! Well no we can't since they happen anyway. But it's not nice and easy to admit you can't ban death. So someone who's drunk but doesn't hit anything gets punished, but someone who doesn't even have the excuse of being drunk can wipe out a school crossing sober and be blameless and hop right back on the road, which is far far scarier to me when driving. The real reason why is because dead people's relatives are very very emotional about things. Teenager chugs 4 beers and stumbles into traffic so they ban caffeinated booze because apparently 4-loko killed him because it's caffeinated. Does that save lives?


Guns don't kill people and video games don't kill people and booze and drugs doesn't kill people, people do. You want to prosecute people for killing people I'm all for it. This precursor nonsense is bs, prosecuting people because they did something someone else did before they killed someone. Prosecuting people because they did something someone else did before they turned into a thieving vagrant tweeker. Pray no one farts in public and then tries to cover it up by slaughtering every child in the building, they may ban farts to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 01:26 AM (YUttk)

571 Not even through the whole Post, been busy working all day...

Would reccomend to you Ace the efforts of John Fund over the years...

I hear he a a book & such...

Posted by: Deety loves SMOD at November 30, 2012 02:22 AM (QG3g9)

572 "Call him out. 'You said you could balance things with these measures. So do so.'"

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 30, 2012 02:40 AM (fJUCF)

573
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 09:20 AM (bb5+k)

574 "To me, your views on China and drug 'infections' are like a drugwar
equivalent of Dr. Strangelove. The commies are poisoning the water to
steal our essence. "





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 09:35 AM (bb5+k)

575 "The Netherlands have always been permissive (for centuries) and it has
always been a nice place with a great economy that punches way over it's
weight class."
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 09:47 AM (bb5+k)

576 "booze and drugs doesn't kill people, people do."



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 09:59 AM (bb5+k)

577 Sometimes you just have to look around and acknowledge that there are just too many fucking aliens...

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit."

Let. It. Burn.

Posted by: BillyShaft at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (5UcDQ)

578 Then why is divorce so highly concentrated in the red states?
Posted by: Jordan at November 29, 2012 06:11 PM (1dwWo)


Because marriage is so highly concentrated in red states.
Mass and DC have the lowest divorces per capita in the nation.
Mass and DC have the lowest marriages per capita in the nation.
Look it up. Census.org

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 03:30 PM (jfUIE)

579 In every discussion of politics today there sIts the elephant in the living room: the LIBERALMEDIA. 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 whatwillbe 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 04:10 PM (tuCVl)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.2057 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.1261 seconds, 588 records returned.
Page size 343 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat