RSS

You Say You Want A Revolution

22 Oct

The rhetoric from liberals, the media, elected Democrats, and even the President towards the tea party, Ted Cruz, and conservatives for that matter has been irresponsible and over the top lately, and in my opinion not healthy to any type of constructive debate, hence my absence from the blog as of late and possible departure altogether. When I am called an arsonist, a terrorist, or hostage taker for standing up for what I believe in, it doesn’t encourage me at all to find any compromise, or especially to back down. In fact, it does just the opposite. The more heated and prolonged the rhetoric, the more steel willed people like me become, and when people like Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen calls Tea Partiers “domestic terrorists”, then you know that we have a divide in this country that may be too deep to heal. I personally have lost a lot of respect and interest in American politics lately because of the rancor, rhetoric and progressive direction of the country and am thankfully in a position to charter a new course if I choose, and that may include putting this country in my rear view mirror.

The hope amongst liberal activists and political bureaucrats obviously is that the tea party conservatives will be shamed and marginalized by personally attacking them, but again, I wouldn’t expect that. All that the progressives are really accomplishing is picking a fight – a fight of which may actually materialize soon and one of which they may regret. Let’s look at the numbers – Ted Cruz garnered 4.4 million votes in his Senate victory, and won by a decisive margin over his Democratic opponent 56%-40%. Furthermore, Mitt Romney secured 61 million votes compared to Obama’s 66 million in last November’s election, and many of those 61 million voters are in some fashion behind the Tea Party effort, so we’re not talking about a fringe group here. I can not for the life of me understand what is so wrong with a desire for a smaller, more efficient government, less taxes, and more personal responsibility. Someone has to convince me why that is such a ridiculous goal. But what’s even more aggravating is that liberals and Democrats refuse to talk about the details and results of the growing central bureaucracy, preferring instead to talk about personalities and intent of those who question it – the TMZ approach to politics in my opinion. And when the “theocracy” card is played, you know that the liberal rhetoric has entered the freak zone. Strange how Obama’s 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright and Black Liberation Theology went completely unexamined, but when Ted Cruz speaks to a Values Voters group, the claws come out.

The reason that there is a divide in the GOP is because there is an entrenched bureaucratic faction within the party that understands if they just go along to get along, they can fleece the tax payers and bring home goodies to their home states and win more elections. Sadly that describes the entire Democratic party at the moment. People who are more interested in their positions of power and privilege than they are with governing responsibly. I am thoroughly disgusted with everything about our current culture and society. To put a spin on what Michelle Obama asserted back in 2008 – “for the first time in my life, I am actually proud of this country.” (I guess that was because her husband was leading in the polls), well for the first time in my life, I am embarrassed for this country.  As Mitch likes to incorporate musical lyrics – allow me to offer the following from The Beatles; Revolution:

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

Advertisements
 
80 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2013 in Conservative Thought

 

80 responses to “You Say You Want A Revolution

  1. meursault1942

    October 22, 2013 at 10:04 am

    With regards to overheated rhetoric, conservatives spent the majority of the Bush administration loudly and frequently calling liberals treasonous, traitorous, and “objectively pro-terrorist” (one of my favorite terms of that era), among the milder terms, for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Was that a bridge too far?

    Beyond that, is it really that surprising that when a small faction declares, “Give us what we want, or we will shut down the government,” said faction gets accused of taking a hostage? Wouldn’t you say the same thing if a small group of Democrats said to a Republican administration, “Enact strict new gun control regulations, or we will shut down the government”? There’s a lovely legislative process for that small cadre to get what it wants. If it doesn’t have the numbers to make it happen, well, them’s the breaks. That’s how our government works.

    “I can not for the life of me understand what is so wrong with a desire for a smaller, more efficient government, less taxes, and more personal responsibility.”

    Nothing, on its face. The problem is that the Tea Party, by its actions, really isn’t about those things so much as it is being a purely reactionary group that can only offer across-the-board opposition to whatever Obama says, no matter what. It comes across as angry and paranoid, not to mention intensely hypocritical (it only opposes government spending that goes to other people, it had nary a word to say during the last administration, etc.), and the myriad conspiracy theories the TP often trots out in the course of making its argument make it hard to take it seriously (just look at Snopes, Factcheck.org, and the like to see the sheer volume of demonstrably false “truths” the TP traffics in).

    And as far as theocracy and all that goes, I would love for everybody to STFU about god on the campaign trail because all the holier-than-thou crap is utterly meaningless and a waste of time. Sadly, that’s not how it works in this country.

     
    • mitchethekid

      October 22, 2013 at 10:29 am

      Casper posted this the other day. It fits right in with what you are saying. It’s well worth the read. Cliff notes version of just one take away: It’s the confederate south who after 260+ yrs can’t get over that they lost.

       
    • Cluster

      October 22, 2013 at 1:14 pm

      But the TP didn’t lose. Along with Cruz’s resounding victory, many others were elected on their promises to oppose Obamacare, and they won the House, which controls the purse strings. So I believe it is the Democrats who are quite possibly the sore losers, and that is demonstrated by their inflammatory rhetoric. And just FYI, the TP was born as a result of the doubling of federal debt during Bush’s tenure, so in a sense, the TP is a result of Bush, not Obama.

      In addition, it wasn’t the TP that held the government “hostage”. They offered many plans to re open all of the government that included various positions on Obamacare. And that is their right – you have heard of “Legislation by Appropriation” right? It’s been done for decades. So in sense, it was Harry Reid and Obama who wanted “all or nothing”.

       
      • meursault1942

        October 22, 2013 at 2:17 pm

        “But the TP didn’t lose. Along with Cruz’s resounding victory, many others were elected on their promises to oppose Obamacare, and they won the House, which controls the purse strings.”

        Who got more votes in the House races: Republicans or Democrats? Seems the TP was able to squeak by on gerrymandering. In broader races–the Senate and the Presidency–the TP lost and lost big. And if the House TPers got elected on their promises to oppose Obamacare, then Obama, Democrats in the house, and the Democratic majority in the Senate got elected on their promises to uphold Obamacare; again, the TP loses. The TP is a distinct minority in this, yet it wants to be treated as though it is the big winner. Again, that’s not how the system works. If the TP wants to get rid of Obamacare, there are long-established ways to do this; if the TP doesn’t have the numbers to accomplish that, well, sucks for the TP. Win more elections and try again.

        By way of comparison, remember when the GOP was the majority during the Bush administration? When the GOP passed laws that the Democrats didn’t like, did the Democrats hold the government hostage? Did the Democrats shut the government down? Did the Democrats demand that the GOP rescind those laws or else? No.

        “In addition, it wasn’t the TP that held the government “hostage”.”

        Yes, it was. The TP demanded a concession that it could not accomplish legislatively, judicially, or in the executive branch in exchange for merely keeping the government operating. Once the TP was circumvented, the government quickly reopened.

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 2:43 pm

        Again, they control the House. If you don’t like that, win more elections. And stop blaming gerrymandering. That’s a tactic both parties do. If you want to blame gerrymandering for the TP victory, I will blame stupid people for Obama’s victory, and I can assure you that I would have a much stronger case.

         
      • meursault1942

        October 22, 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Well, Republicans control the House; the TP doesn’t, really. That was proven when Boehner finally reasserted control, left the TPers behind, and allowed a bill that both Republicans and Democrats supported to get voted on.

        So again; it was a small cadre of one part of one branch of government that took a hostage and forced the shutdown.

        And again, GOP control of the House doesn’t excuse hostage-taking, and it isn’t sufficient to get Obamacare repealed (hence the hostage-taking in the first place–the TP isn’t able to accomplish its goals by legitimate means). If the TP wants to run the show, it’s going to have to win a lot more elections.

        As far as gerrymandering goes “both sides do it” is the falsest of false equivalencies. The GOP has elevated it to an art form and, accordingly, has reaped much greater benefits:

        Republicans tried to entrench their position through a colossal gerrymander. Several Republican-controlled states proceeded to redraw their electoral boundaries to make Democrat success nigh on impossible. And it worked. By 2012, results in the House of Representatives were so skewed that the Republicans comfortably maintained their majority despite Democrat candidates receiving more than a million more votes.

        Take Pennsylvania, where Democrats won nearly 51 per cent of the vote, but Republicans won 13 seats to five. Or Michigan where the Democrat vote was nearly 53 per cent while Republicans took almost twice as many seats. North Carolina: 51-49 to the Democrats but nine Republican seats to a paltry four. And on it goes. That sort of result landed in at least 10 states – only one of which was rigged to favour the Democrats. To get a sense of the scale of it, consider that in the seven states redrawn by Republicans, near parity voting (16.7 million votes to 16.4 million) delivered 73 Republicans and 34 Democrats.
        That’s a clear perversion of democracy and it’s no accident. Indeed the Republican State Leadership Committee made it explicit. They ran a $30 million project called Redmap, aimed at winning key seats at the state level, which would give them the power to draw electoral boundaries. What’s more, they planned to do this in a census year so they could draw with precision – 2010 was exactly such a year.

        See? The TPers–and indeed the House majority–depend upon gerrymandering. There’s no gerrymandering the Senate, and there’s no gerrymandering the Presidency. In those contests, the GOP (and in particular the TP) got thumped.

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 3:42 pm

        I wouldn’t call losing by less than 10% out of 120 million popular votes getting “thumped”. And it’s strange to hear a liberal complain about mastering political maneuvering, but I guess when you lose at that game it doesn’t set well, right?

        Boehner (who I am not a fan of) and the TP finally gave in to an intransigent President who was willing to allow the country to go into default.

         
      • meursault1942

        October 22, 2013 at 4:03 pm

        Hey, I’m not saying that the gerrymandering is illegal or unprecedented or anything like that. I’m just saying that if you’re using the House elections as evidence that there’s a big groundswell of support for what the TP is doing, you’re wrong, as those election results are due to gerrymandering far more than anything else, and in fact, many more people oppose the TP than support it, even in raw election numbers. The TP is hugely unpopular, and its hostage-taking stunt has even made it quite unpopular among Republicans.

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm

        Tell me, when a union goes on strike and shuts down the plant to oppose managements decisions, is that “taking hostages”?

        Liberals usually support that.

         
      • casper

        October 22, 2013 at 6:47 pm

        “Cluster
        October 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm

        Tell me, when a union goes on strike and shuts down the plant to oppose managements decisions, is that “taking hostages”? ”

        There is a difference between a company and the country or the world economy, isn’t there? And the TP didn’t go on strike. They shut down parts of the government while still getting their own paychecks.

         
  2. Jake Goldblum

    October 22, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    i am actually getting really offended by what they are writing over there. Espcially this- they wonder why jews dont vote with these assholes

    Since Jews have been prevented from learning or practicing a trade for centuries, they are best equipped to administer rather than perform. This is I their DNA.

    What an anti-sematic rant. Look at the nobel peace prizes, drs and all the great things jewish people have done. Do they really think jews are stupid? I am not a sensitive person but this was over the line. mark was even worst. How do jews persecute christains? Luckily the adl defends jews and goes after radicals/

     
    • Cluster

      October 22, 2013 at 1:20 pm

      i am actually getting really offended by what they are writing over there.

      Well then don’t go over there. Is that too hard to figure out? You know a lot of progressives need to understand that in a free society, you have the right to be offended.

       
  3. Cluster

    October 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    This ought to scare the hell out of all you guys:

    While attacked by most Democrats, many pundits and even some Republican leaders, Mr. Cruz is in the mainstream for rank-and-file Republican voters, according to Democracy Corps, a Democratic company run by James Carville and Stan Greenberg.

    http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/republican-candidates-are-proud-of-comparisons-to-/#ixzz2iUiPvUWm

     
    • casper

      October 22, 2013 at 4:27 pm

      “Cluster
      October 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm

      This ought to scare the hell out of all you guys:”

      The problem for conservatives is that not everywhere has the demographics of Texas. Running Cruz clones across the nation is going to cost you the House and blow any chance of taking the Senate. He might be mainstream with the TP, but the TP certainly isn’t considered mainstream by the rest of the country.

       
  4. kmgtwo

    October 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Ted Cruz garnered 4.4 million votes in his Senate victory, and won by a decisive margin over his Democratic opponent 56%-40%.

    And Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who Cruz replaced, won her elections 61%-38%, 65%-32%, and 62%-36%.It looks like Cruz actually lost ground over the moderate he replaced.

     
    • kmgtwo

      October 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm

      Dammit! I didn’t close the tag.

       
  5. watsonthethird

    October 22, 2013 at 4:44 pm

    This just in: John McCain is a “liberal Republican.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/liz-cheney-john-mccain-98680.html

    See? If you’re not a part of the Tea Party elite, then you’re just a liberal. lol

     
    • Cluster

      October 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm

      This just in: John McCain is a “liberal Republican.”

      I have been telling you that for years.

       
  6. mitchethekid

    October 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    I was unaware that you identified so closely with the radical elements that are trying to take over the Republican Party, that you refer to yourself in the first person. That has not been my experience of you. Maybe you’ve decided to take up performance art. If you have; you’ve got us. Congratulations. If not, maybe an intervention is worth contemplating. Re-education camps and all of that. I hear that if you are good, behave, follow the rules and surrender your free will that you are given ice cream in any flavor you want and at anytime!
    I have said this till I’m blue in the face (no pun intended.) If you associate the Tea Party with conservatism, (and sincerely, it is not my intention to offend you in any of this) but then not only do you know very little about historical conservative thinkers, but you are as radical and misguided as the contemporary Tea Party. If I were to state that Barrack Obama is conservative in actions and policy accomplishments you’d probably scream “WHAT!” I would follow by saying that not only does he recognize the reality of any derivation ( and obvious manifestation) of what the word pro-gress describes, he has succeeded in combining the best of both. And under circumstances, obstacles and the sheer weight of regressive ness that any lesser person would have said fuck it: and a long time ago at that. He’s a modern day Perseus incarnate.
    The truth is, when viewed through the very long progression of conservative thought over the past 300+ yrs, he is most decidedly conservative. What he isn’t is shallow, misinformed, opportunistic, resentful and flat out nuts.
    Instead of being embarrassed by our country, you should be embarrassed to be represented by Tea Party Republicans. Since they despise government; other than one of their own choosing, they know nothing about governing and frankly they have no interest in doing so. Their sole purpose is to take down the federal government and I’m not being euphemistic in saying that’s it’s revenge, resentment and confusion. Many people smarter than I have said it’s revenge as well, except they add a confederate mentality to their calculus. To me, it’s populism gone mad.
    75% of the country thinks that no Republicans should be re-elected to congress and the Tea Party fares even worse. I don’t understand why you don’t see the angered, disproportionate response they had for being unable to undo AHC and losing two presidential elections in a row. Add in the worst Speaker in our history and you get a minority of a minority, threatening to wreck havoc on the economy if they don’t get their way. AHC is law, period. In whatever form you wish to label it, the law was in the positive confirmed by the SCOTUS. You may disagree with the law: many do but to claim John Roberts is an activist judge is not only absurd, to actually come to that conclusion is dangerous to others. They decided to flagrantly, with no regard to the outcome of their temper tantrum, flout the law. The temerity; the utter lack of self awareness, no regard for consequences and actively encouraging others
    to join them in this doomed utopian fantasy is an act of sedition.
    And I think that if these Tea Partiers can bandy about impeachment with an arrogant ignorance that is so stupefying that it makes my eyes spin, then they should be arrested. They offer no plan, no strategy and no alternative. The demand for ideological purity is not only unrealistic and unobtainable, it is highly destructive for it encourages more and more radicalism. So when people call them (figuratively) suicide bomb wearing domestic terrorists, not only is it justified, it’s an accurate description. I mean what else would you call it? A negotiation tactic? That’s what terrorism is but it doesn’t necessarily mean bodily injury or death. It’s psychological. If A then B. Tit for tat. But it was a willingness to inflict massive injury to the economy and our country that is most shocking. What kind of people would think this was a good idea? This was their logical conclusion? To quote Robin Williams “In my Mack Truck, I’m going to drive this load of Pineapples to Hawaii.” These people are so far to the right, they’re left.
    And these actions comes from people who never miss an opportunity to claim that it is they who are the greatest patriots. It is they who are the “real” Americans.
    I’ve got news for ya’ Sparky; their are no real Americans. And to be technical about, it the “natives” are not native either.
    What galls me is how prideful they are of being divisive. They think it’s cute to be snide. Cruz today making a subtle but obvious Birther reference by stating with mocking sarcasm that AHC is being run by Nigerian scam artists. All of the know-nothingness, the racism, the walking around with guns, the demand for a Birth Certificate, the misspelled signs, the emails that have watermelon’s growing on the White House lawn, the posters portraying Obama as an African witch doctor: complete with bone in his nose and a spear in his hand, the breathtakingly stupid accusations of being a socialist, a Muslim, a Marxist, a murderer, gay, a meth addict, incapable and incompetent, a glowing red goat eyed antichrist and the devil himself. And where do you see people who harbor these convictions? Where do they reside? In the party that thought it was a good idea to invite them in beginning in1968.
    26 states with 23 Republican governors have refused to expand Medicaid. I guess it’s principal is more important than assisting millions of people access to affordable health care. I suppose they would rather have a greater drain on their assets by providing emergency care than, you know, being proactive. Especially when it doesn’t cost the State anything. Keeping with tradition of contempt and all.
    Has it crossed your mind why the most holy of holies, that which has been synonymous with Republicans since like forever: the business community: is up in arms over the radicalization of their once safe and secure political harbor? Their best interests at heart always a foregone conclusion? Although the business community has colluded with the Republican Party for who knows how long, and is every bit as responsible for creating these outliers, they expressed shock and feigned indignation and dove into the Koch Brothers Millennium Falcon. Speeding away as fast as they can to leave behind a mindset that could fuck up everything on planet Earth circa 2013. The money.
    “It wasn’t me! It was the one armed man!”
    The offence you took at the words used to describe the obvious is (to me anyway) code. It’s OK to deride the President, his supporters, and society in general but god forbid someone should do the same to those whom throw the arrows.
    I am all for states rights and a lessening of unnecessary, cumbersome regulations. But this is 2013. Not 1776. If the Tea Party really was about fiscal issues they would not have put social issues as their main focus. Guns, God, abortion, contraception, gay marriage, home schooling,Christian identity, science denial,all of it. That’s the blanket that has covered their supposed purpose and the fanaticism, the absolutism, the unyielding adherence to a misappropriated ideology will be their undoing.

     
    • Cluster

      October 22, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      The person and the faction that poses the greatest harm to our economy and this country overall, is Obama and progressive bureaucrats, ie; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John McCain, etc.. They have and will continue to make unsustainable financial promises to the country that have put us $17 trillion in debt and counting, and when the music stops playing, millions upon millions of people will be hurt badly. Food will cost more, energy will cost more, and housing will cost more. Today it was reported that there are more women out of the work force than in the last 24 years. Black unemployment is at an historic high, black teenage unemployment is over 50%, and it was again reported today that 300,000 Floridians will now lose their individual health coverage because of Obamacare. I very much take exception to anyone who defends the current course of this central, incompetent bureaucracy. That is either a sign of low intelligence or dementia.

      The cost of allowing this insanity to continue is far, far worse than trying to stop it, and I don’t care if that’s the tea party or the Women’s bowling team from Peoria. This country is in a fucking mess and there is only one person and one entrenched bureaucratic faction that deserves the blame.

       
      • kmgtwo

        October 22, 2013 at 5:51 pm

        Yes, of course, Obama is responsible for everything that has happened after 20 January 2009 and also responsible for everything that happened before that date. He put the US into two wars on a credit card and personally fired all of those people who lost their jobs in 2007-2008.

        He really needs to stop reducing deficits and unemployment. It kinda makes it harder to hate him.

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 6:03 pm

        I hope you realize that the “reduction” in deficits is measured against 2009’s deficit that included TARP I and the $800 billion stimulus, so not a real achievement. And when labor participation rate is at a 35 year high, reducing unemployment by .1% is more of a shell game and quite meaningless, but do go ahead and take that victory lap if it makes you feel better.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 22, 2013 at 6:07 pm

        Okay then, Cluster, prove your claim. Show us how much of the $17 trillion in debt Obama is responsible for. Show the numbers and provide sources.

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 6:15 pm

         
      • Cluster

        October 22, 2013 at 6:17 pm

        Obama’s overall debt to date, $17 trillion.

        http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/search?startMonth=01&startDay=20&startYear=2009&endMonth=10&endDay=20&endYear=2013

        Is there any reason why you couldn’t find this information on your own?

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm

        Raw number mean squat. You didn’t show how much of the increase was due to Obama’s policies vs. pre-existing policies. Try again.

         
      • mitchethekid

        October 22, 2013 at 7:16 pm

        I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news but the sky isn’t falling. And for you to try to pin the “blame” on one singular person, a singular political party and their representatives is non-thinking and tribal. I know you are better than that. Challenge the bubble. Refute it. Take a pin and burst it.

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 5:21 am

        KMG,

        You’re just to mentally thick to even talk with. Do you think these debt numbers increase outside of any policy influence? But I will bet you believe that increasing the debt ceiling over and over again also doesn’t have any impact, right? I mean that’s what Obama said. All governmental policies and regulations have associated costs, those costs add up. That concept should not be too hard to understand.

        Mitch,

        I included the Bush years as to not too offend the hyper Obama sensitivities here on this blog. And as you can see, this country has added nearly $1 trillion in debt every year for the last 12 years, and I blame that primarily on entrenched bureaucratic politicians of all stripes who love policy and regulations and like to bring goodies back to the home state to win elections. Obama just happens to be the current leader of the parade.

        This debt is nearing a very dangerous level. Think about this – consumer debt is nearly $13 trillion. We are a nation of debtors both public and private, and if the value of the dollar continues to drop as a result of QE1, 2, and 3, which it has already done – millions of people will be hurt badly by paying a lot more for food, energy, housing etc.. The essentials of life, and those people will not be able to afford that. This is not a game.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 6:17 am

        Do you think these debt numbers increase outside of any policy influence?

        No, but apparently you do. You refuse to back up your assertion that Democrats are responsible for the debt. Break down the $17 trillion and show how much is attributable to individual policies.

        I think you don’t know and really don’t care. Your claims are a prime example of truthiness.

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 7:38 am

        I tell you what KMG, how about if I make this easy for you and just blame Republicans. I know that’s something you can understand and get behind. Problem solved.

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 7:04 am

        You actually want an account of individual policies and regulations and their associated costs as they attribute to the mounting debt? Is that what you are asking for? And outside of that, you are reluctant to believe that your beloved politicians are responsible for accruing that debt?

        Hard to believe what a complete moron you are. I should have known when you said “raw numbers mean squat”. Raw numbers mean everything, and have no bias.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 9:16 am

        You don’t have to go ino that great of detail. Just the broad major contributing factors and the approximate percentage of the debt they account for will be fine. Thanks.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm

        No luck yet? Here, let me help.

        http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 7:20 pm

        You see this is what I mean by you being a complete moron. I do blame Bush, I have several on occasions and that is why I posted his abysmal record as well. He was not a good financial steward for the country. Sadly, people like you are the problem in this country. You have zero interest in actually resolving problems preferring instead to just blame, deflect and ridicule the opposition. Small minded partisan people drown out rational people who understand that both parties are responsible for putting our country in financial peril and that is why I often say the problem with our country is that there are just too many stupid people walking around. You prove my point nearly everyday. I told you earlier that I could make it easier for you and just blame republicans, but then you went ahead and actually did it.

        Oh and by the way, Ezra Klein even admits that the Center is a left leaning group, and coming from Ezra, that means the group is borderline communist.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 23, 2013 at 7:21 pm

        kmg, conservatives don’t have the ability to take context into account. It’s a simplistic view, I know, but it is what it is. I can’t remember… Did you once consider yourself a Republican as I did? How embarrassing to be one now.

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm

        Context? You mean how everything is Bush’s fault? That any criticism of boy wonder is racist? How tea partiers are equal to the Klan? How people with end of world views should be denied political positions? How people who challenge global warming are science deniers?

        That kind of context? Again, too many stupid people walking this country

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 23, 2013 at 7:47 pm

        You know, Cluster, you’re the one that keeps trying to inject race into this. i don’t notice anyone else here doing that.

        But if you can’t acknowledge the economic collapse that occurred at the end of the Bush administration–and that’s just one example–then I don’t think you have a leg to stand on when you call others stupid.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 7:47 pm

        Really, Cluster, the insults aren’t necessary.

        The person and the faction that poses the greatest harm to our economy and this country overall, is Obama and progressive bureaucrats, ie; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John McCain, etc.. They have and will continue to make unsustainable financial promises to the country that have put us $17 trillion in debt and counting, and when the music stops playing, millions upon millions of people will be hurt badly.

        Funny, I didn’t see Bush’s name there. I saw Democrats and one name the extreme right (like Baby Dick Cheney) considers a liberal. When it was suggested that perhaps they were not the major drivers behind the debt, you threw Bush into the mix. Nice cover.

        I never said Democrats weren’t to blame; I merely suggested they weren’t entirely to blame in counter to your argument. I am interested in solving problems with rational solutions, but I haven’t seen you provide any. You’ve only thrown out insults and dubious claims. You called Cruz’s election a “resounding victory” when he received a smaller percentage of the vote than his moderate predecessor did in her three previous elections. You claim the Tea Party was born of Bush’s debt increases, but it didn’t exist until 2009. You claim the TP Congressmen didn’t hold the government hostage, but then say they offered to re-open the government if only Obama would give up his signature achievement.

        So tell us, Cluster, rather than just insulting us, why don’t you put up a post that actually contains some rational solutions?

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm

        I think the insults are necessary at this point because again, I have repeatedly mentioned solutions to our financial mess but here you are again, asking me to lay them out. Is it a retention problem? Or something else? I will from now on try and mention republicans by name so as not to confuse you, but I thought that was evident when I posted debt total from 2001 to 2009, and as I mentioned in the same sentence as the one you all worship, it is entrenched career politicians who are primarily to blame. We have added approx. $1 trillion in debt every year for the last 12 years and it takes more than just the President to accomplish that.

        As I mentioned, I have on several occasions laid out what I think needs to be done, so how about you humor me and tell me what you think?

        And speaking of context, did you see Dem. Alan Grayson using a burning cross on a fund raiser email? Maybe you guys can put that in context for me?

         
      • Cluster

        October 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm

        Here’s a little home work for you while you’re forming your ideas

        http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 8:25 pm

        I thin what Grayson did was stupid and out of line. Good enough?

        Let’s start with Social Security. The simple way to ensure solvency is to eliminate the cap on how much of someone’s income is taxed. One step to reduce spending is to streamline operations in the Department of Defense. There are many instances where each service is performing identical functions. Get out of Afghanistan and that will save a bundle of money.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 8:26 pm

        So what is your solution to reduce the cost of welfare?

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 2:09 pm

        Go after fraud and waste and kick some people off.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm

        I read your homework assignment. Forbes (not exactly a liberal rag) says the CATO report the story hinges on is bullshit. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/09/03/the-conservative-case-for-welfare-reform-suffers-massive-blow-via-cato-institute-study/
        What say you?

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 2:08 pm

        I would say that we are talking about the explosion in Welfare altogether, not whether or not it is a “livable wage”. Try and stay focused.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 24, 2013 at 3:23 pm

        Go after fraud and waste and kick some people off.

        That seems kind of simplistic. How much more could be saved by finding fraud and waste that hasn’t already been found? It seems like the amount would be pretty low. How many people would you kick off? 10%, 20%, more? What is your solution for how those people survive once they are cut off from any benefits?

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 6:31 pm

        No you guys are right, there’s nothing to worry about here. Welfare spending has shot up 32% over the last 5 years, but those are all just honest, decent people in need. I am sorry I even brought the subject up. Look, Obama is doing a great job, and your liberal policies are really turning out well.

        If anything ever goes wrong, just blame stupid republicans, click your heels twice and wait for Obama to give a speech. He always makes things better, doesn’t he?

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 24, 2013 at 3:34 pm

        Sorry, I was focused on the premise of your article, which was a Republican Congressional report based on a flawed CATO study.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 24, 2013 at 3:36 pm

        Go after fraud and waste and kick some people off.

        I am reminded of former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who campaigned on eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” as the way to balance California’s budget. Guess what? After he had actually been in office for a while, he realized it wasn’t that easy.

        “I have learned a lot of things where I felt one way before I went into office, and all of a sudden you learn things are not quite this way and you change,” he told the Times. “People call it flip-flopping. I would rather flip-flop when I see something is a wrong idea than get stuck with it and stay with it and [keep making] the same mistake.”

        One of the biggest mistakes he now believes he made was to conclude that “waste, fraud and abuse” in government budgeting and spending was a bad enough thing to spend time trying to reform. “If you look at the $14.5 billion we need [to make up the budget deficit for this year alone], you don’t even have to look there,” he said. “You are not even going to find 1 percent there.”

        Not even one percent.

        http://spectator.org/archives/2008/01/21/arnolds-gray-days

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm

        If anything ever goes wrong, just blame stupid republicans, click your heels twice and wait for Obama to give a speech. He always makes things better, doesn’t he?

        Cluster, you said earlier in this thread, “I think the insults are necessary at this point because again, I have repeatedly mentioned solutions to our financial mess but here you are again, asking me to lay them out.” I went through every article you have posted here and I didn’t find much in the way of solutions. Mostly a lot of griping. Maybe you should make a post specifically about solutions, and then you could get some feedback about it.

        When you complain about waste and fraud–and reduce regulations, another favorite–these come off has bromides, not real solutions. It took Arnold a few years in a position of power to do something before he realized that, no, it isn’t the problem. It’s like saying we can fix America’s exorbitant health care costs with tort reform. Or we fan fix the budget by getting rid of earmarks. Well, no, you can’t. The numbers simply don’t add up.

        By the way, I’d love to get an answer to the question I posed at the end of this thread.

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 7:26 pm

        What? An answer to “end of life” believers holding public office? Is that the question you want an answer to? Hilarious.

        How about if we first exclude people who believe islands will tip over if too many people are on them? Or exclude people who use burning crosses on fund raising emails? Let’s start with the real lunatics first, ok? Of course that could decimate the Democratic Party, so I would understand your reluctance.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 24, 2013 at 6:49 pm

        I’m sorry, Cluster, that I asked for a little bit more than a bumper sticker as a rational solution.

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 7:22 pm

        No really KMG, there’s nothing to see here – at least for you. Everything is going along great and soon Obama is going to give another speech and media matters will call conservatives more names. There’s nothing for you to worry about, or debate because Obama will let you know how things will be and then you’ll sleep well tonight.

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm

        Question: do you think Obama has even read the ACA? I don’t think he has.

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm

        You know the sad thing is – debate is pointless anymore. We come from two different universes politically, and this current regime (sorry Watson) is such an incredible, incompetent, bungling, lying joke that all you can do is make fun of it. It’s hard to believe how big of losers they all are in the administration and Democratic leadership.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 24, 2013 at 7:57 pm

        What? An answer to “end of life” believers holding public office? Is that the question you want an answer to? Hilarious.

        Yes, I’m serious. I would like an answer to that. There certainly are Republicans in office who believe it. I was hoping we could establish at least some common ground, but maybe not!

        And a bonus question: Do you think elected officials who believe we’re in the End Times are equivalent to ones who believe islands will tip over if too many people are on them?

        Ah well, maybe you’re right and debate is pointless.

         
      • Cluster

        October 24, 2013 at 8:13 pm

        When you refer to end of times, are we speaking of Al Gores prediction about ten years ago that we only had ten years to live? Or how about Sir Bob Geldof’s recent prediction that humans will not live past the year 2030? I just want to be clear about what “end of times” we are referring to. Would it be Biblical or Global warming related?

        And just for the record, I think people who believe islands will tip over are far more dangerous.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 24, 2013 at 11:13 pm

        Okay, I will repeat the question verbatim as I originally posed it: I say that anyone who truly believes we are in the Biblical End Times is not fit to hold public office. What do you think?

        As for islands tipping over, anyone who believes that is an idiot. Kind of like the magical thinking that people will be sucked up into the sky any day now, or that the earth was made in six days. And idiots in office are absolutely dangerous.

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 5:14 am

        i wouldn’t disagree. But answer this question – should people like Al Gore be excluded from office? Remember he constantly sounds the “end of times” alarm too.

        One thing you guys always overlook is that there are just as many lunatics on the left as there are on the right.

        That being said, how about excluding people like Maxine Waters who openly expressed that she would like to nationalize the oil industry.

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 5:16 am

        Sooooo – any ideas if Obama has read the ACA? I am guessing he hasn’t.

         
      • kmgtwo

        October 25, 2013 at 5:48 am

        Does anyone besides you care if Obama has read the text of the ACA?

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 6:31 am

        Well considering that it is his “signature” piece of legislation, I would hope that he is at least familiar with it. As it is, I am not so sure.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 25, 2013 at 10:50 am

        But answer this question – should people like Al Gore be excluded from office? Remember he constantly sounds the “end of times” alarm too.

        Cluster, you are a dodger supreme, aren’t you? I ask a simple question and all I get back are more questions. Man, you’re evasive. Are you like this in real life? Client: “Why is that asking price so high?” Cluster: “Why is your salary so low?”

        There’s only one person I’m aware of who made a silly statement about Guam tipping over. That would be Rep. Hank Johnson. He claims he was kidding and speaking metaphorically. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn’t. But to claim that he’s more dangerous than End Timers in office is just patently absurd. I haven’t heard a single End Timer, such as Michelle Bachmann, claim that the Bible (or God) is just kidding. They are true believers. They believe the end of the world is eminent, and that they can play a role to bring it about. That is deranged and dangerous to the rest of us.

        That’s also why they are different from Al Gore. Let’s just assume for the moment that Al Gore’s claims about climate change are hogwash. But he’s not hoping for the end of the world; he’s trying to prevent catastrophic change. That makes him leagues different from the Michelle Bachmanns of the world, don’t you think?

        And I didn’t say End Timers should be “excluded.” That was your word. I say they are not fit to hold public office, meaning no one should vote for them. I didn’t take you for a religious zealot, but maybe I was wrong.

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm

        I am not dodging – I somewhat agreed with you, but it’s an asinine question. It’s like saying that brown lounge chairs should not be on the Titanic. I think if some candidate emphatically claimed that Biblical end of times were here, he/she wouldn’t be elected. But unlike you, I don’t worry too much about things I can’t control. Nor do I concern myself with stupid issues like this. Get a real problem to worry about.

         
      • meursault1942

        October 25, 2013 at 11:20 am

        Regarding waste and fraud, those are at an all-time low in the SNAP program , so there’s really not much to be wrung out there. And The Atlantic took a broader look at the idea of government fraud and found that the conventional wisdom about it is wrong. Fraud instances are low (far lower than conservatives claim they are), fraud typically isn’t committed by aid recipients (“For the most part, fraud isn’t the product of scheming low-income beneficiaries — Mitt Romney’s 47 percent — living high on the hog on your dime, but rather someone other than the beneficiary standing to make a buck off it.”) , and the idea that we can discover huge savings simply by “rooting out fraud” is misguided, which is something that even those who push the notion understand:

        Earlier this year, Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, both Republicans, introduced legislation to save $30 billion over 10 years from SNAP, purportedly by “eliminating loopholes, waste, fraud, and abuse.” Once you dig into their fact sheet, however, none of the savings actually come from fraud, but rather from cutting funding and tightening benefits.

        There’s no more fraud in government programs than there is in purely private-sector programs. Yet conservatives treat them very differently, as that article’s conclusion states:

        Combatting fraud requires efforts and investments that target the real perpetrators, not cheap shots at beneficiaries and reflexive cuts in their programs. There are, after all, equal levels of fraud and theft in other fields, most notably finance — but we don’t try to reduce it by shutting down the entire industry and blaming the customers.

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm

        …but we don’t try to reduce it by shutting down the entire industry and blaming the customers.

        I don’t think any conservative has ever said, let’s shut down the entire program because of fraud. But to ignore the problem of fraud is just senseless. There is fraud, so instead of deflecting and mocking those who call it out, how about you guys actually try and do something about it? What are you afraid of? It’s asinine to spend time trying to diminish the level of fraud – let’s just go after it. Much like the SEC does when there is corporate fraud – as they should.

        I don’t know what this is a point of contention.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 25, 2013 at 11:50 am

        meursault, don’t you know that your sources are part of the liberal media and therefore can’t be trusted?

         
      • meursault1942

        October 25, 2013 at 3:12 pm

        I’m not opposed to going after fraud at all. It’s just that the reality of the situation is:

        1) Incidence of fraud is extremely low.
        2) As such, rooting out fraud is not going to result in the tremendous cost savings conservatives claim.
        3) The pieces of legislation created by Thune and Stutzman illustrate how conservatives often say they’re going to find cost savings by rooting out fraud, but in fact, their own legislation only finds cost savings by cutting funding.

        So I’m all for trying to reduce fraud for the end goal of reduced fraud. Fraud is rare, but it exists, and making it even rarer is fine by me. The cost-savings argument is a non-starter, though, because it’s false, and conservatives frequently use the nonexistent goal of cost-saving as an excuse to cut funding. If you want to cut funding, then introduce legislation to cut funding; why hide that goal behind claims of combating fraud? What are Thune, Stutzman, etc. afraid of?

        Also, the Atlantic article lists some proven ways to combat fraud–if combating fraud really is the goal and not a smokescreen:

        *Tap the profit motive. Florida uses private-sector audits conducted in return for a portion of the money recovered from fraudsters.
        *Cross-reference benefit-recipient lists. Cross-referencing databases of social benefit recipients can cut down on fraud, such as recipients who did not disclose income from one programs that would make them ineligible for another; prisoners collecting benefits to which they are no longer entitled, like unemployment; or those who are simply dead.
        *Use new technologies. Artificial-intelligence detection systems are programmed to learn normal billing patterns and identify aberrant billing activities. The systems can also identify collusion between provider networks.
        *Do it the old-fashioned way — just more. Research has shown that the typical anti-Medicaid-fraud worker recovers, on average, $200,000 per year. As unpopular as it is to say, sometimes hiring more government workers saves taxpayer money.
        *Enlist beneficiaries in fighting fraud. This may sound heretical to government-haters, but the fact is that any program’s intended beneficiaries aren’t the problem — they’re the stakeholders. Road Home beneficiaries reported fraudulent claimants. Medicare and Medicaid patients have been enlisted to spot billing fraud.

        I’m up for doing those things. How about you?

         
      • Cluster

        October 25, 2013 at 3:43 pm

        I am 100% for those anti fraud measures and don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be. Look, you guys gotta stop telling yourselves that conservatives are government haters. That’s a delusion that is harmful. Conservatives like me want a more efficient government, period, end of story. If an anti fraud person can save tax payers $200,000 – hire ten of them. And fraud is more rampant than I think anyone let’s on to. I know this is anecdotal, but I personally know of two people gaming the system. And if I know two, I know many other people know just as many. I think fraud could be epic if we just started to drill down on it.

         
      • meursault1942

        October 25, 2013 at 3:54 pm

        BOOM! Consensus reached! Nice to end the week on a high note. Now we just have to get the government to actually do these things, but if we’re teaming up on it, then we’re already off to a good start.

         
  7. Cluster

    October 22, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    Allow me to point out another inconvenient fact for all of you to an upcoming progressive cause that will soon be all the rage, and people like me will be called a racist over. Immigration. Currently we have high unemployment in low skilled fields, and as I mentioned, over 50% unemployment amongst black youth. Well now, our bureaucratic elites led by the incompetent President will want to legalize 11 million low skilled people, further diluting the labor pool of low skilled workers which will drive down wages and drive up unemployment.

    That will be the actual detailed result of that progressive agenda and that is why sane people will oppose it, and why bureaucrats and their sycophants will embrace it.

     
  8. Cluster

    October 23, 2013 at 7:41 am

     
  9. watsonthethird

    October 23, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Cluster, I love ya, but I must take issue with your basic premise. (Are you surprised? lol)

    You complain that the rhetoric from the left is over the top, irresponsible, and not healthy to constructive debate. And yet you yourself engage in similar rhetoric. You frequently refer to President Obama in derisive terms, typically referring to the administration as the “regime,” for example. You come across as someone who likes to call others names, but when the tables are turned, you take your ball and go home. I have to wonder if any conservatives are truly willing to engage in discussion with anyone they perceive to be a “liberal.”

    That said, it is interesting how differently we view the antics of people like Ted Cruz and the Tea Party in general. I wonder if we could establish some rudimentary points of agreement. I will start. I say that anyone who truly believes we are in the Biblical End Times is not fit to hold public office. What do you think?

     
    • casper

      October 25, 2013 at 2:25 pm

      watsonthethird,
      “I say that anyone who truly believes we are in the Biblical End Times is not fit to hold public office. What do you think?”

      I disagree. There have been an number of leaders over the years with odd ideas. That doesn’t mean they aren’t fit to hold office. When we start limiting who can hold office based on their beliefs we are ending this country.

       
      • watsonthethird

        October 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm

        Casper, I’m not saying that there should be litmus tests for who can and cannot hold office. I’m saying that someone who holds these beliefs would not get my vote because I think they are unfit to hold office.

        And it’s not a question of odd ideas. People who think the end is at hand don’t have much motivation to prepare for the future, do they? Even worse, some of them think they can help bring the end about. I think these are scary people.

         
      • casper

        October 25, 2013 at 8:14 pm

        Watson,
        I’m fine with not voting for people with odd ideas and the people who think the end is at hand are especially scary, and I would never vote for one of them. That said, the last thing we need is some kind of litmus test to hold office, because that makes us as bad as the other side.

         
      • watsonthethird

        October 25, 2013 at 10:50 pm

        Casper, I probably didn’t express it well, but I’m not advocating some sort of test or qualifications that potential candidates must submit to before they can be included on a ballot. That would be bad indeed–mainly because the other side would abuse it. lol

        No, I would hope that the majority of Americans would find people with these sorts of beliefs to be unfit for office, as I do, and not elect them.

         
  10. rustybrown2012

    October 25, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Watson,

    I agree with you 100% – “they are unfit to hold public office”. After all, I think we can all concur that some ideas are more odd than others, and the extreme ones can hopefully cause the electorate to roll their eyes in unison.

     
    • rustybrown2012

      October 25, 2013 at 8:25 pm

      I would go a step further and encourage the media to actively engage public officials about their religious views, as well as any other superstitions they may have, and how such beliefs would inform their interpretation of good governance. Would Scalia have been confirmed if he had elucidated his thoughts about satan as he did so recently? In this country, unfortunately, probably – but maybe not, and I think we all have a right to know and judge for ourselves.

       
      • watsonthethird

        October 25, 2013 at 10:51 pm

        I agree that exposing the beliefs of these people more fully would help inform the electorate. Good to hear from you, rusty.

         
 
%d bloggers like this: