RSS

Hello. I’m Reince Priebus and my name has affected my judgment.

16 Aug

crybaby-gop31Great idea. Don’t invite NBC or CNN to your pity party because, you know,  just in case someone might contemplate thinking about considering having a mini-series based on the life of a very accomplished woman. Who may or may not run for office again. In 3 yrs. But just in case, lets have Limbaugh and Hannity be the circus ringmasters. Yeah, those two clowns, one of which has lost his radio show distributor and the other one who’s about to.

Advertisements
 
49 Comments

Posted by on August 16, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

49 responses to “Hello. I’m Reince Priebus and my name has affected my judgment.

  1. GMB

    August 16, 2013 at 10:16 am

    “based on the life of a very accomplished woman”

    You mean a 1% who nobody would have heard of if not for her husband? The RNC has every right to decide who gets to moderate and air their debates. If cnn and nbc want to run what are going to nothing more than extended commercials for Mrs. Clinton then this is the result.

    Maybe Rush and Hannity should be invited to moderate the Democrat debates? I am sure the ratings would be sky high.

     
  2. mitchethekid

    August 16, 2013 at 10:56 am

    What does her husband; the most popular of all of the living ex-presidents, have to do with anything? He may have been an entre, but she was well on her way before they met. You could say the same thing about Madame Curre.
    Personally, I would love to see those two self absorbed windbags moderate. Fact is, they are gutless cowards who have to control the conversation with unabashed bias of shilling to a paranoid right. The RNC learned nothing from the supposed “autopsy” they did after the election. What they did do, was to exhume a zombie. This great idea to limit the audience is just plain stupid. They have taken a speculation, blown it completely out of proportion and then acted on it as if it were a fact. Do they think that boycotting the 2 networks is going to make the advertises quiver into submission? Hardly. But let them throw a tantrum over something that might not happen. It just makes them look more foolish and out of touch.
    They are afraid of her, and she might not even run! The below link spells out HRC accomplishments.

    http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-c4p-fantasy-sarah-vs-hillary-2016.html

     
  3. ricorun

    August 16, 2013 at 11:58 am

    I try not to be a “grammar nazi” (okay, I am, though with benign intentions), you should replace the word “effected” in the title of the post with the word “affected”. Just sayin’.

     
  4. mitchethekid

    August 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Well, since you didn’t deride me personally or try to undermine the content of the topic I made the change. Thanks.
    http://web.ku.edu/~edit/affect.html

     
  5. kmg

    August 16, 2013 at 4:19 pm

    Does anyone actually take Priebus seriously anymore? I mean, anyone besides the RNC membership who voted to ban CNN and MSNBC from the Republican debates. He is making an empty threat just to continue the RNC strategy of torpedoing Clinton before she even starts running. The tried it in the Benghazi (oh, excuse me, that should be BENGHAZI!!!) hearings, where Rep. Issa tried every which way he could to get a witness to implicate her and came up with nothing.

    The RNC won’t ban CNN and MSNBC because they don’t want to lose the viewership of the debates nor the money the networks provide in putting them on. They don’t have the balls to have Republican stalwarts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, or Coulter be the moderators because of the massive embarrassment it would cause to their party. We still have over 2 years before any debates take place. By that time, Priebus will either act like he never made such a threat and invite the two networks to participate or he will cry that the RNC is being shut out of their coverage.

     
    • mitchethekid

      August 16, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      Right on! Power to the people. And all that hippie, radical pinko jazz. Except it’s a sure bet that if you lke jazz, they won’t.
      But isn’t the behavior beyond pitiful? They took a turn at pathetic and got lost. They mistook GPS for GOP.

       
    • 02casper

      August 16, 2013 at 7:43 pm

      “The RNC won’t ban CNN and MSNBC because they don’t want to lose the viewership of the debates nor the money the networks provide in putting them on. ”

      Of course they won’t. What Priebus is doing is pushing the conservative mime that the press is liberal and picking on poor conservatives.

       
  6. mitchethekid

    August 16, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Bad strategy. More like a self-fulfilling prophecy. I agree Casper, but what’s even more cynical is suggesting that right wing radio shock jocks ringmaster the spectacle. When even Limbaugh said thanks but no thanks, you know they’ve hit bottom. They probably think there are monsters hiding under the bed and are on a full scale search to find them.

     
    • 02casper

      August 16, 2013 at 8:10 pm

      Mitche,
      He’s working the refs. Three years out.

       
  7. GMB

    August 16, 2013 at 11:25 pm

    If the rnc does keep it’s word and bans cnn and nbc from the debates, this will show that they might just be understanding that their base is very unhappy with them. The conservative base of the party does not want a candidate or national party that panders for more left of center votes they are not going to get anyway.

    Please, someone do a total viewership study and see if the total between cnn and msnbc even equals half that of fnc. If it does, well color me impressed. The rnc looses nothing telling those folks to go take a hike.

    Won’t matter in the end though, the rnc has already decided it is either the fatman from joisey or prince jebward the 467th.

    Who ever the dems run will win in a lanslide and since my predictions were not worth snot last time around let’s hope they stay that way. I predict a record low turnout among conservative voters in 2016 and the swan song of the repub party.

    I’m going with a reborn Whig Party in 2020!!

     
    • mitchethekid

      August 17, 2013 at 1:20 am

      If your prediction comes true, it won’t because of record low turnout, it will because all that’s left of the party are the truly insane. Everyone else has been run off. Conservative base? The base isn’t conservative, they are lunatics. Left of center?! The center of gravity has shifted so far to the right that the ship is unstable, unmanageable and impossible to navigate. The fat gal is singing so they better wise up.

       
      • Cluster

        August 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm

        The base isn’t conservative, they are lunatics. Left of center?! The center of gravity has shifted so far to the right that the ship is unstable, unmanageable and impossible to navigate.

        If that were true, Romney would not have won the nomination Romney was a very moderate candidate, much to the chagrin of GMB – LOL

         
  8. GMB

    August 17, 2013 at 1:04 am

    Would this count as one of Hilliary’s accomplishments?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

    Wish she would tell us all how to it. I gots younguns thats need an edumacation.

    Enjoy your weekend everyone and don’t feed the rinos.

     
    • mitchethekid

      August 17, 2013 at 1:30 am

      Lets look at the words used in the first paragraph. Controversy, alleged, likelihood, no official investigations and never charged with wrongdoing. If in fact this activity, which is now almost 34 yrs old was “criminal” I would say it’s an accomplishment since she got away with it. On the other hand, maybe she was a shrewd investor. Like buying Apple, Google or even IBM when they were IPO’s. In 2004 I was invested in a small cap managed fund that produced a 60% return in 12 months. Should I be suspected of wrong doing because I followed the advise of my broker?

       
      • GMB

        August 17, 2013 at 5:28 am

        “Should I be suspected of wrong doing because I followed the advise of my broker?”

        Yes you should. Every single detail should be investigated. I shall notify the folks who drive the black suburbans of your misdeeds instantly. Please stay right where you are.

        Resistance is futile.

        😛

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 17, 2013 at 6:50 am

        Resistance is futile. hahaha. I like your sense of humor.

         
    • daruttan

      August 17, 2013 at 4:23 pm

      http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/08/bush-a01.html
      I’ll take that Hillary post and raise you a GWBush post. One of many!

       
  9. GMB

    August 17, 2013 at 6:23 am

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/

    A very interesting read. They seem to think that king putt is setting Hillary up to be primaried by queen putt.

     
  10. Cluster

    August 17, 2013 at 9:55 am

    Isn’t this very similar to the DNC boycotting Fox News? I don’t remember seeing any Democratic debate on Fox. Or is that different?

    Later today, when I have time, I will list the “accomplishments” of the very “accomplished” pantsuit.

     
    • watsonthethird

      August 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm

      Cluster, as I recall, there was a Democratic president debate scheduled for Fox News, but pressure from outside groups caused several candidates to decline to participate and Fox ultimately canceled the debate. The DNC didn’t boycott Fox News. Anyway, I’m not sure it is in the Republicans’ best interests to limit their visibility to the true believers, but they can do what they want.

       
    • kmg

      August 17, 2013 at 2:15 pm

      What happens when CNN and MSNBC put on a “Candidate Forum” and invite the Republican candidates to attend? Priebus will stamp his feet and threaten anyone who appears. Baby Paul and Calgary Cruz will tell Priebus to shove it up his ass. Priebus will try to punish them, most likely by banning them from RNC debates. The TeaTards will revolt, thereby splitting the Republican party even more than it is now.

      I can see how that works out well for you. Please continue.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm

        Well, since Fox Entertainment was going to produce the mini-series and NBC and CNN were only going to air it, guess what? Not only did Reince the Prince have a temper tantrum of faux rage that made him look like an ass, but it was misdirected. He never complained that Fox was the producer, he only bitched about the broadcasting networks.Well great googly moogly! Fox caved. For awhile, Fox News was the propaganda organ of the Republicans, then the roles switched and now they’ve switched back again. Sort of like when the magnetic poles reverse, only in reverse!

         
  11. mitchethekid

    August 17, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Priebus’s pretend boycott would work if the only people who voted were Fox News viewers. Unfortunately for him, the the results of RNC sponsored Growth and Opportunity Project has been discarded like a gum wrapper. Another example of not listening and learning. “Very sad mamma! He killed himself!” (Bad Boys II)

     
  12. GMB

    August 17, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    The repub party is going to split anyway if they continue to trow lefty rinos out there as sacrificial lambs. 2016 is the last chance for them to get their act together.

    The donks go for their base first and foremost , then add in the so call undecideds. The repubs do it backwards, that’s why they have had two very narrow wins and two pretty good losses the last four times around.

    Kmg, questions for you.

    Do you think we should spend more money on the war on drugs?
    Do you think we need military bases all over the world?
    Do you think we should have combat troops in twenty-four African nations?
    Do you think the NDAA should be repealed?
    Do you think drones should be used to kill United States Citizens?
    Do you think domestic spying by government agency’s without warrant is ok?

    There are more but I’ll just go with those for right now.

     
    • casper

      August 17, 2013 at 6:22 pm

      GMB,
      Hope you don’t mind if I answer you questions.

      Do you think we should spend more money on the war on drugs?
      No. Less would be much better.

      Do you think we need military bases all over the world?
      No, we should close at least half of them.

      Do you think we should have combat troops in twenty-four African nations?
      No
      Do you think the NDAA should be repealed?
      Not sure, i would need more information.

      Do you think drones should be used to kill United States Citizens?
      No

      Do you think domestic spying by government agency’s without warrant is ok?
      No

       
    • GMB

      August 17, 2013 at 6:42 pm

      Guess what Casper, welcome to the TEA Tard Club. Make sure not to step on the Snake. 😛

       
    • kmg

      August 17, 2013 at 9:21 pm

      GMB,

      We should end the war on drugs. I support legalization for marijuana.
      We need bases in some places (Korea, Japan, Greenland, etc.), but not in all countries. It is probably about time we left Germany.
      Where we have combat troops in Africa is best left to the commander of AFRICOM.
      I assume you mean the National Defense Authorization Act. If so, the answer is no. I prefer the military has the funding it needs. Without the NDAA, there will be a lot of hungry soldiers and their families. It also sucks to be shot at and not get paid for it.
      In some instances, I believe drones are perfectly acceptable to kill US citizens. When a US citizen is on foreign soil and sides with our enemies, he becomes our enemy.
      Having worked in Military Intelligence for a couple of decades, I do not agree that the NSA programs that have been revealed constitute domestic spying without a warrant.

       
      • GMB

        August 18, 2013 at 12:36 am

        Well Meur, I would have to say welcome to TEAtard land to you too.

        This country has a bloated government no matter which side of the isle you claim to be on. The governments primary job is make sure that the government continues to bloat. We get to pay for it.

        Sooner or later no one will lend the government more money, then it is time to run the presses at the fed 24/7/365.

        Myself, I would rather have that money going to pay for other things than salary’s for more bean counters.

         
      • kmg

        August 18, 2013 at 6:35 am

        I think you meant to reply to meursalt below. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be allowed in TeaTard land.

         
    • meursault1942

      August 17, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      I wanna answer the questions, too!

      Do you think we should spend more money on the war on drugs?
      Nope. I think we need to legalize marijuana at the very least because man, is it stupid to criminalize that. And I increasingly favor full-scale legalization coupled with regulation similar to how we do with alcohol and tobacco.

      Do you think we need military bases all over the world?
      I think we need fewer military bases around the world, but I’m not so sure we should be shutting them all down. Still, I’m sure we could eliminate a good number of our bases without reducing our readiness.

      Do you think we should have combat troops in twenty-four African nations?
      No–our meddling in Africa always seems to make things worse, doesn’t it? But at the same time, the situation is a lot of nations is dire. Guinea-Bissau is a failed state; Liberia is right behind it. I have several friends who’ve done various types of NGO work in Africa, and the stories they have are something else. I really don’t have the foggiest idea what we should be doing in Africa because everything seems foolish and wrong–including doing nothing.

      Do you think the NDAA should be repealed?
      No, we do need to fund the military, but we also need to be much, much smarter about how we do so. I would heartily back an effort to start fresh with a new NDAA that is focused purely on getting the most bang for our funding buck instead of just piling more onto what’s already there.

      Do you think drones should be used to kill United States Citizens?
      No, but KMG raises a good point about the possibility of a US citizen siding with the enemy. But then, of course, allowing such an exception also allows for a government to just kill a US citizen and claim after the fact that said citizen was an enemy combatant. And on and on it goes.

      Do you think domestic spying by government agency’s without warrant is ok?
      Can’t say I do, but I’m not totally sure that’s really what’s been going on with the NSA. To me, the bigger issue is the FISA court failing in its duty to provide oversight in this area. It was a rubber stamp for Bush, and now it’s a rubber stamp for Obama. Do your damn job, FISA court!

       
  13. GMB

    August 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm

    130 shopping days till Christmas!!!

    I’m dreaming of millions of out of bureaucrats left out in the deep snow, just like it used to be.

    Sorry Bing.

    😛

     
  14. cluster

    August 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    Not one bit of outrage from anyone that the Congress critters voted subsidies for themselves thereby excluding themselves of a bill they gleefully subject all of us too? And ding that right before heading out on vacation nonetheless. Where’s the outrage on that? Why is the outrage always directed at some faux perception of conservatism?

    Truth be known, in speaking with GMB and myself, all y’all are speaking with a pretty large sample of conservatives across the country. I am more fiscally concerned, and GMB is more socially concerned, so between the two of us, we represent a large portion of the base, and we’re not insane are we? Wait …………… don’t answer that.

     
    • GMB

      August 17, 2013 at 6:53 pm

      Well as far as being a social conservative, I think my libertarianism is more prevalent.

      Lets talk about the religious aspect. Creationism should be taught in Comparative Religious Studies and not as science, because it is not science. Those of us with faith know this. You can’t teach faith. That is something you have to talk to God about.

      Homosexual marriage. Not about any civil right at all. When the first homosexual couple march into a wahabbist mosque and demand the imam marry them, then I will believe it is anything other than sticking it to Christians.

      Homosexuals can call their relationship anything they want. Marriage is only conferred by God and is only conferred by the act of consummation which no homosexual couple will ever be able to do. It will never be a marriage in God’s eyes.

      Let them do as they want and call whatever they want to call it.

      How about a few hundred thousand bureaucrats on the unemployment rolls in exchange?

       
      • kmg

        August 17, 2013 at 8:02 pm

        When has a homosexual couple marched into a Catholic or Southern Baptist church and demanded the priest marry them?

         
      • GMB

        August 17, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        Kmg,

        That is where this is headed and you know it. It is already happening in the United Kingdom. A homosexual couple is suing the Anglican Church because that Church refuses to preform the “ceremony”

        “They are not giving me what I want” Direct quote from the one suing. The same will happen here. That is one prediction I am willing to bet two cases of GMB Braü on.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 17, 2013 at 9:15 pm

        “Creationism should be taught in Comparative Religious Studies and not as science, because it is not science.”

        Yes indeed. Only this should probably be done at in college – I believe current public educational budgets prohibit philosophy at the HS level.

        “Those of us with faith know this.”

        …got news for ya, those of us without faith know this as well.

        ” Marriage is only conferred by God “

        No, marriage is also conferred by the state and should include gays. This will happen universally and those that opposed it will be rightly viewed by history as bigots.

        “…and is only conferred by the act of consummation which no homosexual couple will ever be able to do.”

        …I wouldn’t be so sure about that if I were you. A brief search on The Google will convince you that gays are adept at all manner of “consummation”.

         
      • kmg

        August 17, 2013 at 9:28 pm

        GMB,

        The UK is not the US. We don’t have the same historical relationship between government and church. In the US, a couple can be married by a judge, a church, or just some dude who sends $20 over the Internet to get ordained in some obscure order. Not all religions ban gay marriage, so why is your interpretation of how a marriage is conferred more valid than another religion’s interpretation. It seems that you want to impose your specific religious beliefs on all other religions.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm

        This is bugging me,
        “should probably be done at in college”
        …typo. should read: “should probably done in college”.

         
      • GMB

        August 17, 2013 at 11:27 pm

        Such anger in your reply. Kind of sounds like someone else there. As long as you remove the 501c3 status for every organization that has a blatant anti-religious agenda, lets do it.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm

        GMB,

        What bullshit. Specifically, what 501c3’s that have a “blatant anti-religious agenda” are you talking about? And what kind of tax subsidies are they getting? Is it anything as absurd as religious institutions paying ZERO property taxes, for example?

         
    • kmg

      August 17, 2013 at 8:00 pm

      cluster,

      What subsidies are you talking about?

       
      • kmg

        August 18, 2013 at 7:10 am

        cluster,

        I don’t know if you are going to respond. I don’t think you’ve responded to me since you called me an “experienced progressive blogger who has all the cliches down pat” and said you were going to save the world without people like me. That’s funny, since I’m not a blogger. I’m just some guy who voices his opinions on a single web site: this one.

        I assume the subsidies you are talking about are the employer contributions to health care. Here’s the real story:

        All federal employees are able to participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), where the Government has been able to negotiate good coverage at good rates based on the size of their employee pool. The Government contributes to a portion of the employees’ premiums, just as any other employer does when that employer offers health benefits.

        Along comes Sen. Grassley, who figures he’s going to offer an amendment to the ACA that would force Congress and its employees, and no other Government employees, out of FEHBP and onto the exchange, thereby treating Congress and its employees differently than every other Government employee. This is like walking into Microsoft and telling everyone in one room they are not allowed to use their employer-provided health benefits, but every other employee can. The only difference is what room they work in.

        Grassley assumed the Democrats will kill the amendment so the Republicans can use it against them. Surprise! The Senate passed the amendment and it made it into the ACA. But as brilliant as Grassley is, he forgot one small detail: he didn’t include language about allowing the affected employer (the Government) to continue providing its historical contribution to the employees’ premiums. The exchanges were designed for people whose employer did not offer health benefits, so there was no language in the law explicitly allowing for employer contributions. Oops. The fix Congress passed was to continue allowing the employer (the Government) to pay a portion of the premiums, just as it does for every one of its other employees who are in FEHBP.

        Given those facts. I don’t understand your objection. This is not a subsidy that no other person in America is given. In fact, the majority of workers receive the exact same subsidy from their employer. It is not exempting themselves from a law that they have subjected the rest of us to. It’s the exact opposite. Employees who receive employer-provided health benefits are exempt from the law. What Grassley’s amendment did was subject Congress and its employees to a law they would have otherwise been exempted from.

        So, what exactly are you upset about?

         
    • GMB

      August 17, 2013 at 10:34 pm

      Beg pardon there Rusty, but a man putting his penis into another mans anus does not count as consummation. It never has and it never will.

      As I said, call the homosexual relationship whatever you want. The Bible is quite clear on what is a marriage. As far as I know, there is no court on Gods Green Earth where you can force Him call to it a marriage..

       
      • rustybrown2012

        August 17, 2013 at 11:18 pm

        And excuse the shit out of me GMB, but who give’s a rat’s ass what the bible says concerning the institution of marriage in this country? I couldn’t care less about about what constitutes a marriage in your imaginary friend’s eyes. I’m more concerned about equal rights and protections in America in the present day.

        For the record, I don’t think churches should be compelled to marry gays. With equal protection, queers will be able to get married anywhere, and I’m fine with churches maintaining the right to their petulant bigotry. Now, let’s talk about removing their tax subsidies.

         
      • Cluster

        August 18, 2013 at 6:46 am

        There are tens of millions of Americans who give a rat’s ass about what the Bible says about that issue and to disregard their feelings is insensitive, offensive and bigoted. More over, the word “marriage” has nothing to do with equal rights and protection as those can be given in numerous other ways so the insistence on using the word “marriage” comes off as a callous disregard for those millions of Americans. Finally, the “imaginary friend” that you condescendingly refer to has been a part of our culture, and world since the beginning of time so a thinking person would give more weight to the issue.

         
      • GMB

        August 18, 2013 at 12:04 am

        No you are talking about removing their tax exempt status.

        Simple, file your lawsuit and get it to the supreme court. Now that mr. roberts has shown his true colors you should have no problem.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 18, 2013 at 7:59 am

        “There are tens of millions of Americans who give a rat’s ass about what the Bible says about that issue and to disregard their feelings is insensitive, offensive and bigoted.”

        I’m not disregarding anything. They are free to adjudicate the issue any way they please within the walls of their own churches. I’m just pointing out that their bigoted nonsense should not be public policy, you know, like the constitution says.

        Your distilling the issue down to the word “marriage” is disingenuous. For one thing, easy for you to say it’s no big deal to prohibit certain people from using the term; you’re not the one being discriminated against. There was a time in the south when it was “no big deal” that blacks had to eat at separate lunch counters. For another, there’s still plenty of Republicans who balk at equal rights and protections, not just terminology, so stop pretending the whole debate is just about a word.

        Finally, lots of things have been with us since the beginning of time, like bigotry, superstition and head lice. Here’s an idea: if discriminating against gays is just so dang central to your “spiritual” beliefs, why not just agree that no fags can be married in a church and that anyone who does get married there is getting the extra special, “honky-dory in the eyes of the lord”, no-fag marriage? Sound good? Of course, you’ll be giving up the billions of dollars in tax subsidies – decent atheists should’t be expected to fund your bigotry.

         
  15. mitchethekid

    August 17, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Did. Ding. Freud.

     
  16. mitchethekid

    August 17, 2013 at 7:37 pm

    Lets talk about the religious aspect. Creationism should be taught in Comparative Religious Studies and not as science, because it is not science. Those of us with faith know this. You can’t teach faith. That is something you have to talk to God about.

    I agree 100%. Maybe more. Perhaps you can convince some others of those thoughts who seem to a bit, ah confused. Pressed now for time but glad to know that about you

     
 
%d bloggers like this: