Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Grover Norquist: Abandon the pledge in our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances   (salon.com) divider line 277
    More: Scary, Grover Norquist, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Americans for Tax Reform, Boehner, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

7159 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Nov 2012 at 2:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



277 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-24 11:52:05 AM  
"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.
 
2012-11-24 11:56:12 AM  
I wish that guy would drown in a bathtub already.
 
2012-11-24 11:57:10 AM  
There's at least a Senator each from Indiana, Nevada, Missouri and Delaware who hope Republicans double down on their crazy and Tea Party primary out some Republicans willing to be rational and make the compromises one must in order to keep our system of government working.

This guys childhood idea is not the only thing childish about him. I expect at any moment for him to start throwing a temper tantrum.

The US system of government only works with compromise. What you end up with through that process is weeding out the extremist parts of any ideology and with something more reasonable, practical, and rational somewhere in the middle. Sure, it might not be the most efficient or effective outcome, but it also keeps us from swinging into something closer to One Pure Ideology or another. We are not a One Party State. No one gets everything they want. However, modern Republicans in their fantasy world they have constructed in their echo chamber think the US should be a One Party, far right wing, Republican State no matter how many elections they lose. They throw these childish fits of "our way or no way" and start putting pure ideology over facts, reason, logic, and the actual good of the country. It needs to stop, and it needs to stop now.
 
2012-11-24 12:00:51 PM  
The business community frowns on your shenanigans.

It's over, Grover. You lost.
 
2012-11-24 12:02:57 PM  
The Surgeon General needs to issue a public warning against echo chambers.
 
2012-11-24 12:04:09 PM  
I really hope nothing gets done by 12/31. Let's all go off the cliff together. Then we will have a new congress sworn in 1/21. They will not be reading the farking constitution this time around. They will be falling all over themselves to get tax relief for middle class americans and the top tax rates will not even be on the table. They will be falling all over themselves to get medicare and SS cuts restored because the old white base that elects the dickbag house republicans are going to feel the pain. Being their old obstructionist selves is not going to work. They do not understand that they are in a position where tehy have to get something done. Doing nothing is only going to piss off the base and worse it's going to piss off the corporate and military contracting supporters. All the pressure will be on house republicans to get something to the senate that Harry Reid will actually bring to the floor.

It's going to be fun watching teabaggers realize they have zero bargaining power on this.
 
2012-11-24 12:29:51 PM  
Norquist admits that a few politicians who signed his pledge are now having "impure thoughts"

I have an impure thought, and it involves Grover and a large horny grizzly bear.
 
2012-11-24 12:32:09 PM  
Pledging loyalty to this immature windbag above your Constitutional oath should be grounds for immediate dismissal from Congress

/and charges of treason
 
2012-11-24 12:39:50 PM  
"For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."
 
2012-11-24 12:44:55 PM  
The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.
 
2012-11-24 12:46:49 PM  
We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.
 
2012-11-24 12:47:10 PM  

GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.


...and then accuse the Democrats of being obstinate and blame everything on them. Never accept responsibility - that's for the other guy!
 
2012-11-24 12:49:15 PM  

Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.


I think the GOP wants to flip that around - the 2% pay almost no taxes but get all the protections expressed in the bill of rights, while the rest of us get only the justice we can afford. so we get to choose between feeding our families and having 1st amendment rights. Or we could pick health care but no 4th amendment protections. i'm sure they'll hold a coupon day for the 2nd amendment tho.
 
2012-11-24 12:55:41 PM  

Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american.



Onion did it.
 
2012-11-24 12:57:18 PM  

GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.


This group is no longer conservative. They are reactionary.
 
2012-11-24 12:59:44 PM  

Weaver95: Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.

I think the GOP wants to flip that around - the 2% pay almost no taxes but get all the protections expressed in the bill of rights, while the rest of us get only the justice we can afford. so we get to choose between feeding our families and having 1st amendment rights. Or we could pick health care but no 4th amendment protections. i'm sure they'll hold a coupon day for the 2nd amendment tho.


The GOP absolutely wants to turn this around.

"If you don't pay taxes or are aren't a veteran, you don't get a vote" is a common conservative theme these days. But *I* say, "why stop there?" Why not go back to the Founders' original intent, and restrict the vote solely to white males who own land or have a certain net wealth? Then our country would surely be better run!

Oh, and don't worry...it wouldn't be racist. Each black person would get 3/5ths of a vote, that would be cast on their behalf by the nearest wealthy white person. Which they would probably be fine with anyway, since getting out of the ghetto to vote is such a hassle, and none of them have ID anyway, right?
 
2012-11-24 01:04:55 PM  

GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.


Sounds alot like religion, no?
 
2012-11-24 01:07:39 PM  

WorldCitizen: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

This group is no longer conservative. They are reactionary.


it's interesting watching the various/sundry GOP factions try to assimilate the fact that not only did Obama get re-elected, but that he got re-elected with a clear mandate, as did the Democratic party as a whole. the Republicans firmly believed that THEY were the majority party, that THEIR vision was the true and correct one for the nation and that Obama and the Democrats were going to go down in flames. none of these guys believed they were going to lose. when they failed, it rocked their worlds in ways people not in the echo chamber can really appreciate.

i'm not convinced the Republicans have made up their minds as to the root cause(s) of their defeat. they're still in the 'shock and denial' phase...but as they come out of that, i'm expecting fear/anger and conspiracy to be the Weenerss followed by the elite inner circle sacrificing someone as a scapegoat. the real decisions about what's going to happen next for the GOP aren't going to be hammered out in the press, or via discussion with the rank and file. it'll be behind closed doors and a shadowy group of money men, evangelicals and party officials will come up with the next best plan for the GOP recovery.

we should have an early indication as to which direction the Republicans are going to go when they nominate their human sacrifice. it's gotta be someone believable and at least moderately well known. Romney, perhaps. or maybe one or two of their GOP pundits. Limbaugh is a good candidate, since he's costing them money rather than making it...but Beck or Hannity would do just as well. it's also possible they may blame Romney's campaign manager but that's somewhat risky, since he took his orders directly from Romney. my personal view is that the GOP elites will most likely blame one or two of their own pundits...but I could be wrong about that..
 
2012-11-24 01:09:09 PM  
damn you fark...damn you.....
 
2012-11-24 01:09:25 PM  

WorldCitizen: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

This group is no longer conservative. They are reactionary.


Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?


Norquist has established a religion, and he's captivated as many fools. No reason that should be surprising, millions of fools go to church every week. That he captured supposedly intelligent conservatives and completely drained all the brainpower the right once had is more impressive. Admittedly the brainpower was never all that great to begin with, but still. After all, you don't need to be some kind of genius to say "Let's make everything smaller."
 
2012-11-24 01:17:42 PM  

GAT_00: WorldCitizen: GAT_00: Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.


Not to be That Guy, but they're not the same thing. A conservative wants to keep things as they are, or at most change only slowly. A reactionary wants to actively undo what has been done, and revert to a previous order.

Lenin was a radical: he wanted to completely overthrow the system.
FDR and Johnson were liberals: they wanted to greatly improve the system via progressive changes.
Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives: they wanted to retard change, maintain the status quo, and remove the mechanisms for enabling the changes currently under way.
Metternich was a reactionary: he threw out the whole French Revolution and put the ancien regime back in place, wholesale.

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

Norquist has established a religion, and he's captivated as many fools. No reason that should be surprising, millions of fools go to church every week. That he captured supposedly intelligent conservatives and completely drained all the brainpower the right once had is more impressive. Admittedly the brainpower was never all that great to begin with, but still. After all, you don't need to be some kind of genius to say "Let's make everything smaller."


Agreed. Norquist is less about being conservative than he is about selling strict adherence to the doctrine that he's promoting. That's not policy, that's dogma.
 
2012-11-24 01:23:06 PM  

whistleridge: You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.



THIS...the GOP will have to explain to 98% of the country why they let their taxes go up in an effort to protect a tiny minority of people who have been doing just fine (or better) during the recession - whose taxes also went up.

"We were so committed to protecting the most privileged, that we preferred to stick it to everyone to make a point"

That's a hell of a campaign slogan for 2014 and beyond.

Telling Grover to fark off is by far the most sensible route. Then again, "sensible" and "Republican" aren't the best of friends.
 
2012-11-24 01:27:19 PM  

Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.


This.

And we should be able to drive as fast as we want... always.
 
2012-11-24 01:37:26 PM  
I will piss on Grover's grave.
 
2012-11-24 01:40:12 PM  

dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.


I want Grover Norquist to live a long, healthy life in a country that's completely rejected his philosophy.
 
2012-11-24 01:41:28 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: whistleridge: You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.


THIS...the GOP will have to explain to 98% of the country why they let their taxes go up in an effort to protect a tiny minority of people who have been doing just fine (or better) during the recession - whose taxes also went up.

"We were so committed to protecting the most privileged, that we preferred to stick it to everyone to make a point"

That's a hell of a campaign slogan for 2014 and beyond.

Telling Grover to fark off is by far the most sensible route. Then again, "sensible" and "Republican" aren't the best of friends.


Yes, but Republican voters are very stupid, and will use any excuse to blame Obama that they hear.
 
2012-11-24 01:46:45 PM  

whistleridge: GAT_00: WorldCitizen: GAT_00: Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.

Not to be That Guy, but they're not the same thing. A conservative wants to keep things as they are, or at most change only slowly. A reactionary wants to actively undo what has been done, and revert to a previous order.

Lenin was a radical: he wanted to completely overthrow the system.
FDR and Johnson were liberals: they wanted to greatly improve the system via progressive changes.
Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives: they wanted to retard change, maintain the status quo, and remove the mechanisms for enabling the changes currently under way.
Metternich was a reactionary: he threw out the whole French Revolution and put the ancien regime back in place, wholesale.

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

Norquist has established a religion, and he's captivated as many fools. No reason that should be surprising, millions of fools go to church every week. That he captured supposedly intelligent conservatives and completely drained all the brainpower the right once had is more impressive. Admittedly the brainpower was never all that great to begin with, but still. After all, you don't need to be some kind of genius to say "Let's make everything smaller."

Agreed. Norquist is less about being conservative than he is about selling strict adherence to the doctrine that he's promoting. That's not policy, that's dogma.


I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.
 
2012-11-24 01:50:55 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Norquist admits that a few politicians who signed his pledge are now having "impure thoughts"

I have an impure thought, and it involves Grover and a large horny grizzly bear.


Suddenly, Norquist realizes that he isn't the Limbaugh, Beck, or Cheney of the Republican Party. He knows that he underestimated his power. Time to double down with a tempertantrum.
 
2012-11-24 01:56:28 PM  

Weaver95: "For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."


Blood for The Blood God!
 
2012-11-24 01:57:39 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Yes, but Republican voters are very stupid, and will use any excuse to blame Obama that they hear.


Very true, but when they're choosing a Congressman and/or Senator, a great many of them will be more interested in the candidates' stand on this issue than whether they belong to the party of the guy who can't be reelected.
 
2012-11-24 01:58:50 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?


Every religion has a version of the golden rule. So no.
 
2012-11-24 02:02:55 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

Every religion has a version of the golden rule. So no.


Cut taxes for others so they will cut taxes for you.
 
2012-11-24 02:05:10 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: "For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."

Blood for The Blood God!


Norquest is the polite and well mannered follower of Khorne.
 
2012-11-24 02:08:47 PM  

dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave face.


FIFY
 
2012-11-24 02:10:15 PM  

Weaver95: i'm expecting fear/anger and conspiracy to be the Weenerss followed by the elite inner circle sacrificing someone as a scapegoat.


This would be a "rational" decision. They will never do this. It would require admitting that a mistake was made. Rove/Newt/Limbo/Grover/Palin/Bachmann? Not a chance in hell. These are the spiritual leaders, they can't kill their prophets. Rmoney/Bush? Sure, they have no value to the party anymore, but sacrificing them accomplishes nothing.

In order to fix any of the problems, they would need to get rid of the people who "let" them be so blind to the defeat in the first place. Broken primary system, broken polling system. Without fixing those problems, they will continue to be shocked and surprised!!

TBH, all they need to do is follow 538 and they dont even need to do their own polling.
 
2012-11-24 02:10:59 PM  
Watching this morally bankrupt subhuman's disgusting ideology die a public death is going to be beautiful.

We can only hope he does the decent thing and self-immolates.
 
2012-11-24 02:18:09 PM  

GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.


I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.
 
2012-11-24 02:19:05 PM  

namatad: Weaver95: i'm expecting fear/anger and conspiracy to be the Weenerss followed by the elite inner circle sacrificing someone as a scapegoat.

This would be a "rational" decision. They will never do this. It would require admitting that a mistake was made. Rove/Newt/Limbo/Grover/Palin/Bachmann? Not a chance in hell. These are the spiritual leaders, they can't kill their prophets. Rmoney/Bush? Sure, they have no value to the party anymore, but sacrificing them accomplishes nothing.

In order to fix any of the problems, they would need to get rid of the people who "let" them be so blind to the defeat in the first place. Broken primary system, broken polling system. Without fixing those problems, they will continue to be shocked and surprised!!

TBH, all they need to do is follow 538 and they dont even need to do their own polling.


yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.
 
2012-11-24 02:19:51 PM  

Tigger: Watching this morally bankrupt subhuman's disgusting ideology die a public death is going to be beautiful.

We can only hope he does the decent thing and self-immolates.


Why? He's not going away. Saxby Chambliss will blown out in his next primary, assuming he doesn't decide to "retire" before that. You notice nobody has followed him.

The GOP will remain resolutely anti-tax. Conservatives are not abandoning the anti-tax mantra.
 
2012-11-24 02:24:34 PM  

whistleridge: GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.


And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.
 
2012-11-24 02:24:52 PM  

whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.


It's...it's beautiful.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-24 02:25:09 PM  

Weaver95: yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.


Probably the saddest part of this statement is "that someone has to be blamed."
I agree that this is exactly what the GOP will do. Blame someone.
But most adults and many children learn very early in life, sometimes you have to blame yourself.
Be responsible for your own bad choices.

If there is one thing which properly defines the GOP it is that they are unable to do this.
 
2012-11-24 02:28:37 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.


That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.
 
2012-11-24 02:29:55 PM  
I hope I see the day when this asshole swings from a crane on the national mall. He is essentially wrecking my country during the prime of my life.
 
2012-11-24 02:30:27 PM  

namatad: Weaver95: yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.

Probably the saddest part of this statement is "that someone has to be blamed."
I agree that this is exactly what the GOP will do. Blame someone.
But most adults and many children learn very early in life, sometimes you have to blame yourself.
Be responsible for your own bad choices.

If there is one thing which properly defines the GOP it is that they are unable to do this.


Republicans are authoritarian. in authoritarian belief systems, if/when something goes wrong someone HAS to be at fault. you find out who's to blame and then you hurt them. the idea is that by hurting whomever is to blame that it will serve as an example to the others about the costs involved with failure. it motivates people to stay in line, work harder and not ask questions.

what's really weird is that authoritarian Republicans believe this will somehow enhance 'freedom'.
 
2012-11-24 02:32:40 PM  
In what farking universe is Saxby Chambliss a RINO?
 
2012-11-24 02:39:01 PM  
I love you subby. lmfao.
 
2012-11-24 02:39:05 PM  

MFAWG: In what farking universe is Saxby Chambliss a RINO?


You know who else is considered a RINO by the Tea Party?
 
2012-11-24 02:39:46 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: MFAWG: In what farking universe is Saxby Chambliss a RINO?

You know who else is considered a RINO by the Tea Party?


Grover Norquist?
 
2012-11-24 02:40:10 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: MFAWG: In what farking universe is Saxby Chambliss a RINO?

You know who else is considered a RINO by the Tea Party?


Anyone in the South with an IQ above 110?
 
2012-11-24 02:41:16 PM  
The Fiscal Cliff. What a misnomer.

It's called "returning taxes to a normal and sustainable level". It's a good thing.

Anyone who is actually serious about the deficit will also acknowledge the only way to make a dent in it is to raise taxes. Cutting spending won't even touch it, unless you're talking about massive defense cuts.

So yes, let's start by returning to fiscally sane tax rates. We'll go from there.
 
2012-11-24 02:41:18 PM  

GAT_00: And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.


You forgot United and Union.
 
2012-11-24 02:43:40 PM  
Extremism in the defense of ideology is a no-brainer.
 
2012-11-24 02:43:51 PM  

whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.


The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.
 
2012-11-24 02:45:55 PM  

Dracolich: GAT_00: And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

You forgot United and Union.


Also Patriot.
 
2012-11-24 02:47:17 PM  
The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.
 
2012-11-24 02:47:59 PM  

GAT_00: The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.


By your own definition that would also require him to be against removing any taxes.
 
2012-11-24 02:48:36 PM  

whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.


No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.
 
2012-11-24 02:51:11 PM  
Democrats.

I congratulate you on your victory, but... Now that you're gonna face a delusional GOP, and the corrupted rich will try to buy every democrat they can get their hands on, this is what you'll need...

www.irdial.com

And grow one of these...

www.mysticrebels.com
 
2012-11-24 02:51:31 PM  
Is it possible that an unintended positive consequence of Ctizens United is that the power and influence of Americans for Fart Reform has been greatly diluted? What sweet irony.
 
2012-11-24 02:51:52 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.


That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.
 
2012-11-24 02:51:54 PM  
FTFA Grover Norquist has a warning for anyone who thinks the influential anti-tax advocate has lost power in Washington.

What's he going to do, piss in your Post Toasties?
 
2012-11-24 02:52:43 PM  

DeaH: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:
I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.


Its knees - stupid auto correct.
 
2012-11-24 02:52:46 PM  

DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.


And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.
 
2012-11-24 02:54:56 PM  

CygnusDarius: Democrats.

I congratulate you on your victory, but... Now that you're gonna face a delusional GOP, and the corrupted rich will try to buy every democrat they can get their hands on, this is what you'll need...

[www.irdial.com image 239x181]

And grow one of these...

[www.mysticrebels.com image 300x300]


This bears repeating.

It's time to play hard ball.
 
2012-11-24 02:55:28 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


They got nuthin'.
 
2012-11-24 02:55:56 PM  

jjorsett: whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


Because he deserved it, and the Republicans this time will deserve it too for making rash thoughtless promises. They might as well take it like men and do some good with their time left instead of behaving like children and have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.
 
2012-11-24 02:57:07 PM  
The Most Punchable Man in America.

/stay clueless my friend
 
2012-11-24 02:57:19 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


"Won't someone please take a moment to feel sorry for all the poor victimized billionaires?!"

I think you're right, dude. That sounds like a pretty good strategy for the Republicans. Much better than Romney's "I'm for the 100%" BS that nobody believed.
 
2012-11-24 02:58:09 PM  
It's time the Dems dropped the hammer (heh) and exposed the GOP for what it is. A flailing horde of liars and ignorant old men, stuck in their ways and unwilling to help anyone but themselves and their donors. Watch them try vote in a raise for themselves above the rate of GDP growth yet again.
 
2012-11-24 02:58:20 PM  
When you play the game of White Houses, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.
 
2012-11-24 02:59:08 PM  
Fun fact: Grover Norquist was secretly gay-married to John Fund when they were room-mates long before same sex marriage was cool.
 
2012-11-24 03:00:49 PM  
And isn't time to do away with the whole 'charitable contribution' deduction.

Charitable donations should be 'in addition to', not 'instead of' paying your goddam taxes.
 
2012-11-24 03:01:03 PM  

Kevin72: Fun fact: Grover Norquist was secretly gay-married to John Fund when they were room-mates long before same sex marriage was cool.


Andrew Sullivan was hiding in the closet, filming it and spanking it all while slapping himself in the face for loving the copulation of two detestable assholes who sank Sullivan's party.
 
2012-11-24 03:02:16 PM  

whistleridge: Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.


but
in reagan's day, reagan was considered a staunch Conservative. god, country, anti-unions, anti-drugs, anti-choice, anti-democrat. pretty much the definition of "CONSERVATIVE" in this country.
(yes, we all know that that means something else to the rest of the universe)

Pretty much all GOP leaders from reagan forward have not been conservatives. they have been increase spending, cut taxes reactionaries. The fact that they created fictions to "hide" or explain this doesnt really matter. "Deficits dont matter", "trickle-down", "starve the beast"

In the end, they lied, they were never conservative, other than in the crudest part of the social side of conservatism.

The best part is that there seems to be little or no effort to change their mantra. The party of greed will stay that way. Which is probably best for the country given that the we now have the centrist democrat party, which at least can act like adults.
 
2012-11-24 03:03:11 PM  

coeyagi: Kevin72: Fun fact: Grover Norquist was secretly gay-married to John Fund when they were room-mates long before same sex marriage was cool.

Andrew Sullivan was hiding in the closet, filming it and spanking it all while slapping himself in the face for loving the copulation of two detestable assholes who sank Sullivan's party.


Clarification: Sullivan was using a tripod for the camera, so he could jerk himself while slapping himself too.
 
2012-11-24 03:03:26 PM  

GAT_00:
The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.


con·serv·a·tive[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] adj:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

It's a fine point, sure, but a conservative is someone who resists change without a compelling reason, not someone who refuses to change. Especially amusing: what is called a conservative in the US is called a liberal or a neo-liberal everywhere else.

jjorsett:
No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


The fact that the Republicans' idiocy has in fact placed them on the horns of a dilemma doesn't alter the fact that the left's primary goal is actually fixing our finances. And I don't say that because of their stated claims, I say that because of the inescapability of their math.

But if you're so defensive about the right, maybe you should think for a second: if doing what you've been doing causes your opponent to win and doing what he does causes him to win too...maybe you really suck at choosing what to do? Yeah, the Dems killed Bush when he hiked taxes, but is that the fault of the Dems for taking advantage of an opponent's tactical error, or is that his fault, for taking an untenable position in the first place? Because I would say it's #2 every time.
 
2012-11-24 03:03:54 PM  

StinkyFiddlewinks: It's time the Dems dropped the hammer (heh) and exposed the GOP for what it is. A flailing horde of liars and ignorant old men, stuck in their ways and unwilling to help anyone but themselves and their donors. Watch them try vote in a raise for themselves above the rate of GDP growth yet again.


I thin Nov. 6 did that pretty well. Peter Sagal read a quote on Wait Wait a couple weeks ago from some Republican that said he thought the American people are for Republican ideas. Sagal's response was "if only there was some way for the American people recently to show us whose ideas they support more"

That line got a huge applause.
 
2012-11-24 03:04:28 PM  

carrion_luggage: The Most Punchable Man in America.

/stay clueless my friend


I wonder if he ever goes out. I'm pretty sure he get heckled sometimes.
 
2012-11-24 03:04:45 PM  
He's urging his troops to hold tight: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

The wilful ignorance of this guy and people like him is staggering. Continuing to be uncompromising petulant children is what is going to get Republicans smashed in the next series of elections.
 
2012-11-24 03:05:36 PM  

DeaH: The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.


Change his ideas or way of thinking.
He will never back down from his cut taxes pledge.
His mind if CERTAIN of this idea.
 
2012-11-24 03:06:35 PM  

TheOther: And isn't time to do away with the whole 'charitable contribution' deduction.

Charitable donations should be 'in addition to', not 'instead of' paying your goddam taxes.


At the very least, we need to get rid of the bit where churches are automatically considered "charities". They should have to engage in all the reporting and other requirements that anybody else does.
 
2012-11-24 03:07:20 PM  

TheOther: And isn't time to do away with the whole 'charitable contribution' deduction.

Charitable donations should be 'in addition to', not 'instead of' paying your goddam taxes.


That provision is to encourage people to give charitably, and I suppose the logic could be that because the money was given away, it ought not to count as your income, and that rich people wouldn't donate at all if they had to pay taxes on their donations.

Of course, that lead to rich people setting up their own "charities" and giving to themselves to deduct the taxes, and charitable deductions really don't matter unless you are rich.
 
2012-11-24 03:07:45 PM  

Weaver95: yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.


But they have already identified who is to blame for the loss. Democrats, the media, and those damned Presidential gifts.
 
2012-11-24 03:08:53 PM  

whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
a. Congressional Dems will propose retroactive middle-class tax cuts after the Bush tax cuts expire
b. Congressional Repubs will oppose these tax cuts, because they were the Dems' idea.

4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.


Thought I'd add a couple predictions of my own.
 
2012-11-24 03:09:38 PM  

DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.


Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the Democratic Congressional leadership will completely and utterly fail to capitalize on this as a talking point.
 
2012-11-24 03:10:00 PM  

jjorsett: whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.
 
2012-11-24 03:10:01 PM  
FTFA: Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections.

Here Grover Norquist admits that raising taxes would raise revenues.

also FTFA: For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo,

Here Norquist admits that taxes haven't actually gone up in 2 decades. Please ignore Bush ! and don't ask why he didn't say "30 years" to include Saint Reagan's tax hikes on the poor.
 
2012-11-24 03:11:29 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


Awww, pity the poor rich people, whose ridiculous tax cut was approved and then extended with the help of Democrats. Now those evil Demonrats want to let them expire like they were meant to in the first place. Those meanies!!
 
2012-11-24 03:12:35 PM  

TheOther: And isn't time to do away with the whole 'charitable contribution' deduction.
Charitable donations should be 'in addition to', not 'instead of' paying your goddam taxes.


this - just include some number as part of the standard deduction. Anything above that amount is still taxable.

theknuckler_33: The wilful ignorance of this guy and people like him is staggering. Continuing to be uncompromising petulant children is what is going to get Republicans smashed in the next series of elections.


I hope so. But it will also require that the dems run electable candidates.
 
2012-11-24 03:12:36 PM  
The problem once again is the message the GOP and people like Norquist sends out, Everyone has to suffer and take cuts but the top.

The trickle down theory that justified the Norquist tax pledge is bunk and everyone knows it now no matter how much they tried to spin it. The Job Creators spin on it flew like a cold turd

( Always felt like that tickle down was so insulting, the lessers getting pittance from their betters. Ill never understand how the GOP got so much mileage out of it )
 
2012-11-24 03:13:23 PM  

Summoner101: jjorsett: whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the congressman has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.


FTFM
 
2012-11-24 03:13:53 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


Got any figures for how 'insignificant' that increased revenue would be? Because it would be interesting to compare the increased revenue from those tax increases to the savings from, say cutting funding for NPR and PBS. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the increased revenue will be FAR more than the savings from those things.
 
2012-11-24 03:14:22 PM  
There are three people in this world that I would gladly pay over $1,000.00 of my hard earned money for opportunity to give them just one solid, beautiful punch to the jaw. Norquist is one of them.

/Frank Luntz is another
//the third is none of your concern
 
2012-11-24 03:14:48 PM  

The Name: You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
a. Congressional Dems will propose retroactive middle-class tax cuts after the Bush tax cuts expire
b. Congressional Repubs will oppose these tax cuts, because they were the Dems' idea.
c. They won't pass the House, and will so become an albatross that the Dems will happily hang around your neck in 2014
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

Thought I'd add a couple predictions of my own.


Agreed. With the final logic added for extra goodness.
 
2012-11-24 03:14:58 PM  

theknuckler_33: Continuing to be uncompromising petulant children is what is going to get Republicans smashed in the next series of elections.


This guy has no intention of waiting for another election to get smashed.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-24 03:15:03 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


Except even the rich get tax cuts from the Democrats plan, so that kind of kills your argument.
 
2012-11-24 03:15:05 PM  
zippythepinhead.com
 
2012-11-24 03:15:27 PM  
this guy truly wants to roll everything back before Teddy and the Progressive Republicans and that's scary. is 21st century america ready for dirt streets and homeless veterans begging everywhere again? the 12 hour 6 day work week? dead rat poo poison in our food? yay?
 
2012-11-24 03:16:32 PM  

jjorsett: And the Democrats Republicans holding out for those taxes tax cuts are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized (ie: Anyone not rich), even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans Democrats had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.


FTFY

You're defending a group that's trying to protect tax cuts while simultaneously trying to balance the budget. In other words, you're defending a group of people who suck at math.
 
2012-11-24 03:17:52 PM  

jjorsett: whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


I agree, it was horrible that the Democrats forced the Republicans to sign a thoroughly stupid pledge that can't possibly be kept just to make the Republicans look bad when it was inevitably broken. Why would the Democrats do such a thing?
 
2012-11-24 03:19:11 PM  
What a vicious little man. Never elected or even appointed to nay political office, yet he blackmails the entire United States to do his bidding or else.

And all because he's a selfish punk who doesn't want to pay his fair share.
 
2012-11-24 03:22:11 PM  

Summoner101: The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.


Until the Norquist mafia stops being such a stupidly effective threat at usurping the incumbent during the primaries if they should DARE TO QUESTION his middle school idea... that ain't gonna happen.

Christ.

Daily Show video on the pledge.
 
2012-11-24 03:23:00 PM  
STAY THE COURSE, REPUBLICANS.
 
2012-11-24 03:27:24 PM  

dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.


I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.
 
2012-11-24 03:28:40 PM  
What did grover do to make them all sign? Did he take their souls and promise them they would get re-elected? I just want to know what the signers of this tax pledge got for going lock-step and toeing the line on not raising taxes on the rich
 
2012-11-24 03:29:21 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Always felt like that tickle down was so insulting, the lessers getting pittance from their betters. Ill never understand how the GOP got so much mileage out of it


I think it was the calculated move of courting the social "conservatives". They locked in a highly motivated, previously underestimated voting block. Combine that with how incredibly successful that economic policy was for the wealthiest Americans, and you had an incredible source of reliable funding, and two solid, yet demographically diverse, voting demographics (fiscal and social conservatives) to spread the message.
 
2012-11-24 03:30:55 PM  

jjorsett: No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


Maybe people who are in charge of running the entire country shouldn't go running around saying that they will NEVER do this, or that such and such will NEVER happen on their watch, like they're four years old.

The entire country is a complicated place, and if our elected officials can't be flexible and adapt to changing times, who the fark is supposed to do it? It's a little more important than whether or not a talking point can be used against you. I mean--to people other than people like you.
 
2012-11-24 03:31:01 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Daily Show video on the pledge.


"make it easier to choose who to vote for"
rofl
one will not raise your taxes !!! LOL
 
2012-11-24 03:32:25 PM  

TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.


You...may want to see a psychologist about that. I try not to judge on these things, and I admit I'm not a phsychology expert, but I'm pretty sure 'I want another man to die so I can exhume him and urinate into his corpse's mouth' ain't normal :p
 
2012-11-24 03:32:35 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Summoner101: The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.

Until the Norquist mafia stops being such a stupidly effective threat at usurping the incumbent during the primaries if they should DARE TO QUESTION his middle school idea... that ain't gonna happen.

Christ.

Daily Show video on the pledge.


Get primaried by a Tea Partier two years after compromising with Democrats when the Tea Partier will just lose or stay the course and lose to the Democrats yourself because you didn't compromise? I realize the odds are probably better without the primary, but it'd flip if the GOP did it en masses rather than one or two members at a time.

Then again, at this point one or two sane members is all they got
 
2012-11-24 03:33:45 PM  

jjorsett: Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.


Or a smart candidate could do what Reagan did: not make any stupid pledges that lock you in to a situation where you cannot compromise.
 
2012-11-24 03:38:20 PM  

Churchy LaFemme: STAY THE COURSE, REPUBLICANS.


"Give me Victory or Give me the Death of the Republic!" - Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, apparently
 
2012-11-24 03:40:12 PM  

born_yesterday: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the Democratic Congressional leadership will completely and utterly fail to capitalize on this as a talking point.


Well, the Senate did get it together enough to put a bill together that keeps the tax cuts in place on the first $250K, and Ried is more of a pushover than Pelosi.
 
2012-11-24 03:43:02 PM  
I want Norquist to die so I can dig up his corpse and allow vultures and packs of wild dogs pick it to pieces.
 
2012-11-24 03:43:21 PM  
Wow. My screen has more red in it than my christmas lights. The fark conservatives have arrived!
 
2012-11-24 03:44:30 PM  

The Bush Tax Cuts for the rich were designed -- hell NAMED -- to boost employment and the economy.

THEY DID NOT F*CKING WORK!


We have a recent bipartisan report, that the GOP has SQUASHED, that found no relation between cutting taxes for the wealthy and boosting the economy.

IT DOES NOT F*CKING WORK, and if you continue to support this shiat, you are a F*CKING IDIOT.

If you are serious about reducing our debt, ABANDON THE GOP TODAY. No more excuses. No more brainwashing. If you are too ignorant to see this, you should cease being politically active for the good of the country.
 
2012-11-24 03:44:51 PM  

themindiswatching: The Surgeon General needs to issue a public warning against echo chambers.


Don't do that, I love Fark!
 
2012-11-24 03:45:35 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Summoner101: The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.

Until the Norquist mafia stops being such a stupidly effective threat at usurping the incumbent during the primaries if they should DARE TO QUESTION his middle school idea... that ain't gonna happen.

Christ.

Daily Show video on the pledge.


The smartest idea in that whole program was that one kids plan to extend Metro North to Vermont.
 
2012-11-24 03:45:42 PM  
i309.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-24 03:46:00 PM  

Hollie Maea: I hope I see the day when this asshole swings from a crane on the national mall. He is essentially wrecking my country during the prime of my life.


Wait, what?

images.nationalgeographic.com
 
2012-11-24 03:46:49 PM  

jjorsett: No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign.


Funny, I recall the main issues being the Iraq war, the recession, evangelicals losing interest and a massive charisma gap.
 
2012-11-24 03:47:31 PM  

namatad: StreetlightInTheGhetto: Daily Show video on the pledge.

"make it easier to choose who to vote for"
rofl
one will not raise your taxes !!! LOL


Even REAGAN would have been in violation of this pledge - repeatedly.

"Your team is winning? It's like you came up with this whole idea when you were 12"

"It was something I came up when I was 12, because we had this teacher..."

...



"Yes, the entire federal government is paralyzed because of a document written by a 12 year old in 1968"
 
2012-11-24 03:49:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: themindiswatching: The Surgeon General needs to issue a public warning against echo chambers.

Don't do that, I love Fark!


We may have a lot of aggrandizing right-wing attention whores like you, but we're not quite a right-wing echo chamber.
 
2012-11-24 03:49:51 PM  
I beg all of you to prevent this from become another SJ thread.
 
2012-11-24 03:50:34 PM  
...becoming...
 
2012-11-24 03:51:11 PM  
Getting rid of Norquist is a great start, but they're only going to have the huge electoral successes they're expecting once they get tough on gays.
 
2012-11-24 03:51:19 PM  

whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.


The only other thing the Dems do is just introduce a real simple bill that extends just the middle class. Then they get a vote on it or force the Reps to filibuster it. In 2014 every single campaign ad references the Reps being obstructionist and raising taxes on the middle class. Then an ass kicking occurs in the midterm election.

The best thing for the Reps would be to support the middle class tax cuts and try to take at least 50% of the credit by calling them bipartisan tax cuts. Instead the Reps are being morons and dying on the beachhead for the rich.

/it isn't like old, rich, white folk are going to go out and vote Dem en masse right now, so the Reps might as well give Obama ~1.2 trillion or so in additional tax revenue and let it ride
 
2012-11-24 03:54:45 PM  
When I was twelve, I wanted to make the all-star team and was hiding my GI Joe obsession from my classmates.

Then I grew up.
 
2012-11-24 03:56:56 PM  
TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!
 
2012-11-24 03:57:42 PM  

Weaver95:
Republicans are authoritarian. in authoritarian belief systems, if/when something goes wrong someone HAS to be at fault. .


I agree, though I'd like to clarify so that we don't get people saying "Well, I'm a republican but I'm not an authoritarian so everything you say is wrong". Authoritarians are almost always conservative, because it protects those that currently hold power. So authoritarians will tend to prefer the republican party.

But I don't think that blame is inherently authoritarian (though it will certainly correlate well). I think it is inherently conservative. For example, conspiracy nuts are typically anti-authoritarian yet see agency in everything (thus seeing conspiracy rather than natural convergence). Seeing agency in natural processes is one of the oldest ways of interpreting the world. Hurricane hits your village? Some rational agent must have caused it, and thus it must have been caused for some reason (sin, etc.). Drought destroys crops? Some rational agent must have caused it, etc. Person gets sick? Same thing.

It is from the most primitive inferences that we observe ourselves as rational agents and, by analogy, extend agency to everything else. This is an extremely hard habit to break.. even I will occasionally take out my frustration on the inanimate target of that frustration. It's ancient enough that it's partly hardwired in. I grew up in a protestant community where every minor inconvenience was part of Satan's evil plan.. where coincidences are not merely correlations that we notice, but divine providence.. and where enthusiasm is actually divine possession, so I'm somewhat familiar with the worldview. We barely understand ourselves, and thus many interpret themselves as being composed of numerous different agents. The further you go back in history, the more often these misconceptions appear (e.g. if you were an ancient greek, you would attribute new ideas to the muses.. you would attribute lust to eros, confusion to eris, fear to phobos, etc.). Though, now that I'm writing that example, I realize that fundamentalist Christians still do the exact same thing (just with fewer deities). And these weren't just poetic metaphors for emotions.. these personifications had actual worshipers that built actual temples. I say this because there's always someone who tries to claim that the Greeks didn't actually believe their religion (to explain why theirs is different).

Even the non-religious overwhelmingly tend to see agency, at least in human beings. Again, this is an easy thing to do. Unfortunately, it leads to situations where we, for example, focus on punishment for it's own sake (you know, because the person just deserves it), rather than punishment to prevent such things from happening again. I may seem a little extreme here in rejecting any kind of agency, but it seems clear that any explanation that denies the existence of some underlying mechanism cannot actually be an explanation. Humans are massively complex, but are not fundamentally different from, say, the hurricane that destroyed your village. Bad reasoning is used in both cases, though the mistakes are far more tenacious when we do not have as clear a picture of the mechanical workings.

what's really weird is that authoritarian Republicans believe this will somehow enhance 'freedom'.

Everyone believes in freedom for themselves. Thus, when they cry for freedom, they do it in earnest *. It's why the republicans were freaking out over denying the freedom of an employer to decide how their employees' compensation, in the form of health insurance, is spent.

* but with a whole bunch of asterisks and fine print that they don't ever mention until you ask further.
 
2012-11-24 03:59:26 PM  
The other possibility for the Reps I see would be to give in on the taxes thing, let the upper class taxes go up as much as Obama wants but in exchange demand some concessions with regard to military scale backs. So various Rep Congressmen can go home and run a campaign based on "I kept this base open and kept X jobs intact because of it".
 
2012-11-24 04:04:50 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-24 04:08:45 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Churchy LaFemme: STAY THE COURSE, REPUBLICANS.

"Give me Victory or Give me the Death of the Republic!" - Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, apparently


All Grover does is present republicans with a choice he knows they're too stupid and lazy to make. Run a campaign based on substance or bend to him and keep running on the thinnest hint of integrity and image alone. Everything else that makes that bet effective and moves the country to harming its citizens is the work of republicans according to their own designs. Yes, he's a vile, little turd who's greatest service to humanity could be being beaten to death with a hammer in a dark alley, but let's not credit him with more than deserves.
 
2012-11-24 04:08:57 PM  

Hunter_Worthington: Getting rid of Norquist is a great start, but they're only going to have the huge electoral successes they're expecting once they get tough on gays.


Because, as Nov 6 demonstrated, nobody will ever vote for an amendment legalizing gay marriage.

/*offer not valid in any state a gay marriage amendment was actually offered this year
 
2012-11-24 04:09:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!


If you can't think of anything clever to say, it's probably best not to say anything at all.
 
2012-11-24 04:13:13 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

25.media.tumblr.com 

24.media.tumblr.com

24.media.tumblr.com

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-24 04:13:51 PM  

Biological Ali: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

If you can't think of anything clever to say, it's probably best not to say anything at all.


Yes, mom.
 
2012-11-24 04:15:05 PM  

Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.


Maybe allow people to opt-out of paying taxes, but by doing so they give up the use of anything provided by the federal government - roads, patent enforcement, access to the courts to redress property violations and protection of their safety by the police and courts.

Then the names and addresses of all those who opted out should be widely published. A week of looting and head spiking later and I think all these "job creators" might start to see they get a lot of value for their taxes.
 
2012-11-24 04:15:43 PM  

Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!


Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.
 
2012-11-24 04:16:11 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Churchy LaFemme: STAY THE COURSE, REPUBLICANS.

"Give me Victory or Give me the Death of the Republic!" - Grover Norquist and the Tea Party, apparently

All Grover does is present republicans with a choice he knows they're too stupid and lazy to make. Run a campaign based on substance or bend to him and keep running on the thinnest hint of integrity and image alone. Everything else that makes that bet effective and moves the country to harming its citizens is the work of republicans according to their own designs. Yes, he's a vile, little turd who's greatest service to humanity could be being beaten to death with a hammer in a dark alley, but let's not credit him with more than deserves.


To quote another farker in some thread or another, "I think [Norquist] would be a very dangerous person to be near if he wasn't getting his way." They got onboard because while it's terrible policy, an absolute is easy to sell in soundbites. They're still onboard because once you've followed the crazy, you're all in no matter what you start to draw later.
 
2012-11-24 04:20:38 PM  

MisterRonbo: Or a smart candidate could do what Reagan did: not make any stupid pledges that lock you in to a situation where you cannot compromise.


If they were smart, they wouldn't be Republicans in the first place.
 
2012-11-24 04:21:26 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.


Drew makes me wear all of that. Don't blame me.
 
2012-11-24 04:22:00 PM  
Silly Jesus is a prime example of why "Change Images to Links" is my default setting
 
2012-11-24 04:25:16 PM  
whistleridge
These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful.

More lost jobs, houses, pensions, savings, hopes, dreams and aspirations;
yeah, just beautiful, if you are a sadist of the first order.
 
2012-11-24 04:27:39 PM  
ninagreipel.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-24 04:27:43 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The only other thing the Dems do is just introduce a real simple bill that extends just the middle class. Then they get a vote on it or force the Reps to filibuster it. In 2014 every single campaign ad references the Reps being obstructionist and raising taxes on the middle class. Then an ass kicking occurs in the midterm election.

The best thing for the Reps would be to support the middle class tax cuts and try to take at least 50% of the credit by calling them bipartisan tax cuts. Instead the Reps are being morons and dying on the beachhead for the rich.


THIS ^ ^ ^ bears repeating. Conservatives in this thread, pay attention to THIS ^ ^ ^ and write your rep/senator to do just that.

/it isn't like old, rich, white folk are going to go out and vote Dem en masse right now, so the Reps might as well give Obama ~1.2 trillion or so in additional tax revenue and let it ride


Old rich white people aren't going to do much except be bitter, pass their close-mindedness on to their kids, and die.
 
2012-11-24 04:34:20 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge
These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful.

More lost jobs, houses, pensions, savings, hopes, dreams and aspirations;
yeah, just beautiful, if you are a sadist of the first order.


The economics say your predictions are wrong.

I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:

1.bp.blogspot.com

And just like THIS ^ ^ crap, they'll be full of it then, too.

So yes: schadenfreude ist die schonste freude. These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.
 
2012-11-24 04:35:34 PM  
Someone on the GOP side needs to kick the table so that house of cards can come tumbling down!
 
2012-11-24 04:36:32 PM  
Why is this piece of shiat who has never been elected to public office permitted to wield such power over duly elected Republican members of congress?

It's like they like being held captive. Stockholm Syndrome or something. Also a convenient premeditated absolution scheme:

"Sorry, my hands are tied: I can't be bothered to use my brain and be part of the national conversation about changing times and needs of the people who elected me; I signed a piece of paper several years ago."

Not only that, but he should be in federal PMITA prison for his Abramoff shenanigans at the very least.
 
2012-11-24 04:44:07 PM  
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fools who signed his pledge?
 
2012-11-24 04:45:11 PM  

Silly Jesus: [ninagreipel.files.wordpress.com image 600x398]


Dammit dont get me to like you..but yeah thats what I see
 
2012-11-24 04:45:24 PM  

Hunter_Worthington: Getting rid of Norquist is a great start, but they're only going to have the huge electoral successes they're expecting once they get tough on gays.


They also need to increasingly insult Mexicans and continue their pro-rape agenda. As a Democrat, I fear the GOP's skillful reading of the zeitgeist.
 
2012-11-24 04:48:18 PM  
How come so many people care about Norquist's 12-year-old self's plan to slash most taxes into nonexistence, but nobody cares about my 12-year-old self's plan to genetically engineer real-life Pokemon and ban all mornings?
 
2012-11-24 04:49:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus is a prime example of why "Change Images to Links" is my default setting


He's a prime example of why I use the ignore feature.
 
2012-11-24 04:49:24 PM  

ha-ha-guy: The best thing for the Reps would be to support the middle class tax cuts and try to take at least 50% of the credit by calling them bipartisan tax cuts. Instead the Reps are being morons and dying on the beachhead for the rich.


I've said the same thing before about healthcare. On either issue, they could be as blustery as they like, compromise, and then proudly proclaim it was their version that passed, not the Kenyan's. Or they could present a bill that they know the Democrats want as their own, and force them into passing Republican legislation (similar to how Clinton handled welfare reform).

Or, they can hold their breath until they crap themselves. I know where I'm placing my bets.

I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.
 
2012-11-24 04:54:11 PM  

born_yesterday: I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.


They only keep their jobs as long as they please the most ignorant and spiteful portion of the US population.

They're beholden to the Jesus-Rode-a-Dinosaur-and-Keep-Government-Hands-Off-MY-Medicare crowd.
 
2012-11-24 04:54:15 PM  
I was just dry humping my wife when she was bent over decorating the Christmas tree. The kids almost caught me. Scary stuff. It would be like trying to explain why tax cuts for the 1% creates jobs.
 
2012-11-24 04:56:40 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: How come so many people care about Norquist's 12-year-old self's plan to slash most taxes into nonexistence, but nobody cares about my 12-year-old self's plan to genetically engineer real-life Pokemon and ban all mornings?


My 12-year-old self's plan was for a device about the size/form factor of a Star Trek PADD, that would not only perform basic computing functions, but play full-length movies that were stored on small checker-size media.

If my 12-year-old self had patented that idea, my 32-year-old self would be ridiculously wealthy right now.

/not sure about your plan though...
 
2012-11-24 04:57:36 PM  

whistleridge: TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.

You...may want to see a psychologist about that. I try not to judge on these things, and I admit I'm not a phsychology expert, but I'm pretty sure 'I want another man to die so I can exhume him and urinate into his corpse's mouth' ain't normal :p


It is if it's a chunk of evil like Grover Norquist.

/AND I'll drive a stake through his shriveled heart too afterwards, just in case.
 
2012-11-24 05:00:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie:
It is if it's a chunk of evil like Grover Norquist.

/AND I'll drive a stake through his shriveled heart too afterwards, just in case.


I dunno, man...when *I* think 'Grover Norquist', just about the last thing that goes through my head is 'whip my dick out and put it near his mouth'. I'm just saying.

I approve of your heart + stake pledge though. I would even be willing to sign it.
 
2012-11-24 05:01:30 PM  
Do we need to bring back tar and feathering?
 
2012-11-24 05:01:30 PM  
The fun starts after sequestration when Obama proposes tax cuts for people making less than $250,000/year and the GOP fights it.
 
2012-11-24 05:04:22 PM  

born_yesterday: I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.


John McCain
Sarah Palin
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan

Those are the last four people they've put up for election... to run the highest office in the land. And you can't understand how their leadership can be that bad? Did you think those were good choices?

I'm not really slamming you really... but think about it. They thought those people were the best they had. They're pulling from an increasingly shallow pool with little hope of restocking the pond. The only young people becoming Republican are die-hard racists, bigots, and willfully ignorant. Doesn't bode well for them... at all.
 
2012-11-24 05:06:00 PM  

jaytkay: born_yesterday: I just can't understand how their leadership can be this bad.

They only keep their jobs as long as they please the most ignorant and spiteful portion of the US population.

They're beholden to the Jesus-Rode-a-Dinosaur-and-Keep-Government-Hands-Off-MY-Medicare crowd.


But I can remember when that was all bluster and bullshiat. I'm sure that someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush pass a sweeping anti-abortion law during his first term? It immediately had no chance whatsoever, because they deliberately failed to account for situations of rape, or the life of the mother, and was quickly forgotten.

Now, they have candidates trying to cross that line. I think what I'm trying to say is that they are reaching a point of diminishing returns, but they have few if any in the party that have the strength or will to change directions. Their hope is that they can compensate for the loss of the "fiscally moderate independent" by bringing out more of the far right. But those people were already supporting the party as hard as they could.

What I don't understand is how they can keep trying to squeeze blood from that rock. The only explanation is that their money has become independent from the will of the voter, otherwise they would have seen what the rest of us saw on election day: a repudiation of their platform. The financial support they receive from the party bigwigs must outweigh that (ie, if I change the setting from "derp", I'll lose party support during re-election, so I'm going to take my chances).
 
2012-11-24 05:18:46 PM  

whistleridge: I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:


I would take that action. The only thing that is likely to happen is the health insurance, because Obamacare isn't going to be repealed. People will probably be cool with it by then.

However, there is really never going to be a recovery that benefits all of society. The Dow will get ever higher, but we have clearly offshored our future. The only reason unemployment (U3) is under 8% now is because so many people have shifted up to U4,5, or 6. The problem is that we aren't creating wealth - we are borrowing it. The notion that a nation can exist almost solely as a service economy is just insanity. Farming, mining, and manufacturing are necessary to a healthy economy and the greedy 1% are enjoying the fatter margins provided by offshoring, but this undermines everything.

We are following the Brits into the chorus, I just hope our avarice won't take the world with us. Who knows who might get elected after the next recession?
 
2012-11-24 05:18:48 PM  

bronyaur1: The business community frowns on your shenanigans.

It's over, Grover. You lost.


We'll see.

Bush Jr famously said "Elections have consequences." Certainly the right is talking as if that's true; we'll see in the coming months.

Personally I would love to see Boehner, Cantor, McConnell and their whole putrescent cohort in the dustbin of history.
 
2012-11-24 05:20:28 PM  
Does Norquist have an actual job? Where does he get his money? Is he involved with some toilet bowl of a "think tank", or what?
 
2012-11-24 05:21:38 PM  

themindiswatching: The Surgeon General needs to issue a public warning against echo chambers.


Like Fark?
 
2012-11-24 05:26:38 PM  

buckler: Does Norquist have an actual job? Where does he get his money? Is he involved with some toilet bowl of a "think tank", or what?


He's a lot like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton, only less useful.
 
2012-11-24 05:30:52 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.


I don't know, I always see the Forever Alone troll face posting biatch comments and masturbating furiously.
 
2012-11-24 05:35:26 PM  

doyner: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave face.

FIFY


Hey, he may enjoy that kind of thing. Creepy people tend to enjoy such vices.
 
2012-11-24 05:36:33 PM  
Okay, so let's see: the Republicans have three factions fighting amongst each other, two of which want the fascists/social conservatives to take the blame. Then we have assholes like Grover Norquist fighting to keep their own grip on power with their shiatty planning and lobbyist jobs, and the pundit class like Limbaugh that control the message trying to save their own ass.

We're in a Berlin Wall like situation here. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, and it's going to happen pretty soon. I don't see the Republicans making it to 2014 without some severe problems they don't have the maturity or intelligence to fix.
 
2012-11-24 05:37:26 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?


It's appropriate since the GOP is behaving more like an apocalypse cult than a political party.
 
2012-11-24 05:39:15 PM  

whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.
2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.
3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.
4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.


Wrong! They have no interest in fixing this country. The only thing either side is interested in, is getting reelected. You know full well that as soon as a republican "caves", they will beat them to death with it in the next election. For lying, being a flip-flopper, not being able to keep their word, etc. Step out of your echo chamber and admit you are being disingenuous.
 
2012-11-24 05:40:06 PM  

BronyMedic: It's...it's beautiful.


That's...wow. I love that so much.
 
2012-11-24 05:44:29 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Norquist admits that a few politicians who signed his pledge are now having "impure thoughts"

I have an impure thought, and it involves Grover and a large horny grizzly bear.


.."Admit it--you're not coming out here just to hunt, are you?" asked the bear.
 
2012-11-24 05:46:15 PM  
IIRC, the endgame behind the whole "starve the beast and create a crisis" tactic is the eradication of Social Security and Medicare.

Those two programs have been a thorn in the side of ideological conservative because:

1. They are government programs designed solely to help the entire population
2. They work
3. They are well liked

The above facts demolish the core argument of conservatism, i.e., government doesn't work. It is no surprise that conservatives have been attempting to privatize both of them. Thankfully, those efforts have all failed thus far.

By refusing to be fiscally responsible via lowering taxes and increasing government spending, the GOP has helped to balloon the deficit and our national debt. They now have their crisis, but the population not only wants to preserve SS and Medicare, they understand that in addition to budget cuts, revenues need to be raised in order to not only prevent a default on our debt, but in order to also ensure the viability of our entitlement programs.

By agreeing to sequestration the GOP has now painted itself into a corner where taxes will go up no matter what happens. They cannot win politically on this one. Obama played the long game better and we are about to see six weeks worth of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of the teeth from the GOP.

No matter the outcome, the deficit will be reduced and the Republican Party won't be able to claim any credit for doing so.

I'm beyond saying "It's a shame that they aren't fiscally responsible" and I've moved into "I can't wait to see these ass-hats suffer the repurcusions of putting party and ideology over country for the last 30 years."

/grabs six weeks worth of popcorn
 
2012-11-24 05:47:08 PM  

TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.


How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.
 
2012-11-24 05:52:36 PM  

Hunter_Worthington: It was only the GOP's lack of will that prevented them from triumphing


ISWYDT
 
2012-11-24 05:56:29 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-24 05:58:19 PM  

The Troof hurts: TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.

How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.


Disagreeing is fine. Being a petulant child in an adult's body who demands fealty and ideological purity from elected officials that are supposed to represent their constituents is something else entirely. A "pledge" that entirely eliminates any possibility of compromise whatsoever is not disagreeing, it is sitting in a corner holding your breath until you turn blue and it is exactly why the US credit rating was downgraded last year and why we are facing the fiscal cliff today. Grover Norquist is not pleasant in any sense, so why should anyone be pleasant to, or about, him?

Oh, and take a stroll through FreeRepublic once in a while before you go calling anyone a hypocrite about being a big 'ol meanie.
 
2012-11-24 06:02:40 PM  

whistleridge: Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge
These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.


I truly hope so, but I'd like to see, if not statistical evidence, at least somebody writing about outside of here.

I don't see or hear optimism from the people my Co does business with, it's doom and gloom everywhere, and no they are not all idiots. Even the broke people I know are bracing for more broke with a little govt. help, but no opportunity. We'll see, I'd love send you $10 from a flush account in 4 years after casting my next Presidential ballot for Rahm.
 
2012-11-24 06:11:10 PM  

BunkyBrewman: Mangoose: We should have a citizenship tier. So you can say I only want to pay 2% of taxes but then you'd only get some of the privileges of being an american. Or you could pay 40% of your taxes and get the full package. Healthcare, legal representation, free speech and a mint on your pillow delivered by supermodel. Also having a mint put on your pillow by a supermodel should be an inalienable right of the free peoples of the world.

Also the percentage paid for full citizenship should vary by bracket.

This.

And we should be able to drive as fast as we want... always.


And dump waste from industrial processes wherever we want.... for job creation, of course.
 
2012-11-24 06:12:26 PM  
The Dow will get ever higher, but we have clearly offshored our future. The only reason unemployment (U3) is under 8% now is because so many people have shifted up to U4,5, or 6. The problem is that we aren't creating wealth - we are borrowing it. The notion that a nation can exist almost solely as a service economy is just insanity. Farming, mining, and manufacturing are necessary to a healthy economy and the greedy 1% are enjoying the fatter margins provided by offshoring, but this undermines everything.

So...what you're saying is, you actually agree with what I said, you just don't like it? Got it.

Wrong! They have no interest in fixing this country. The only thing either side is interested in, is getting reelected. You know full well that as soon as a republican "caves", they will beat them to death with it in the next election. For lying, being a flip-flopper, not being able to keep their word, etc. Step out of your echo chamber and admit you are being disingenuous.

As was said above: if you're going to get crucified for signing and adhering to stupid pledges, maybe just maybe you shouldn't be signing stupid pledges.

That the left will take great pleasure in watching the right self-destruct as they fix our finances in no way alters the fact that fixing them is their first priority. They walked the walk under Clinton, and they're doing it now. The right, OTOH, drove up the deficit under 3 consecutive Presidents.
 
2012-11-24 06:15:15 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge: Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge
These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.

I truly hope so, but I'd like to see, if not statistical evidence, at least somebody writing about outside of here.

I don't see or hear optimism from the people my Co does business with, it's doom and gloom everywhere, and no they are not all idiots. Even the broke people I know are bracing for more broke with a little govt. help, but no opportunity. We'll see, I'd love send you $10 from a flush account in 4 years after casting my next Presidential ballot for Rahm.


Since you apparently didn't bother to read the link I cited or pay any attention during the election, let's try again:

Go Google "12 million jobs created no matter who wins" and see what pops up. I'll wait.
 
2012-11-24 06:16:56 PM  

The Troof hurts: TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.

How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.


Get back to me when liberal politicians publicly question a President's patriotism, religion and birthplace.

Until then, grow a pair.
 
2012-11-24 06:28:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: The Troof hurts: TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.

How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.

Disagreeing is fine. Being a petulant child in an adult's body who demands fealty and ideological purity from elected officials that are supposed to represent their constituents is something else entirely. A "pledge" that entirely eliminates any possibility of compromise whatsoever is not disagreeing, it is sitting in a corner holding your breath until you turn blue and it is exactly why the US credit rating was downgraded last year and why we are facing the fiscal cliff today. Grover Norquist is not pleasant in any sense, so why should anyone be pleasant to, or about, him?

Oh, and take a stroll through FreeRepublic once in a while before you go calling anyone a hypocrite about being a big 'ol meanie.


Maybe improve the discourse by taking the high road? Also, I have no interest in what the freepers have to say. I don't want pledges, promises, or feelings, I just want it fixed. Everything else is noise that doesnt help anything.
 
2012-11-24 06:31:30 PM  

Weaver95: Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: "For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."

Blood for The Blood God!

Norquest is the polite and well mannered follower of Khorne.


Kinder and gentler Khomite?
 
2012-11-24 06:33:51 PM  

The Troof hurts:
How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.


most people outside of the GOP don't like Grover Norquist very much. they see him as unrealistic at best or downright evil at worst. what's more, he really does seem to believe in his idiotic crusade. never mind how much damage it would do or the chaos it would cause...he's got his issue and he's not going to stop until everyone does what he wants.
 
2012-11-24 06:35:03 PM  

The Troof hurts: TV's Vinnie: dudemanbro: I will piss on Grover's grave.

I want to dig open Grover's grave, AND piss into his mouth.

Oh, such a glorious day that will be.

How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.


It's not so much disagree with him, it's disagreeing with a philosophy that has failed (trickle-down economics) and hating the idea of someone with a strong influence on Republicans in Congress continuing to push that philosophy. I definitely won't piss on his grave, but I'll be happy when that philosophy is laid to rest.
 
2012-11-24 06:35:37 PM  

The Troof hurts: Maybe improve the discourse by taking the high road?


by calling people farking hypocrites.

"high road" does not mean what you think it means
 
2012-11-24 06:36:17 PM  

whistleridge: Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge: Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge
These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.

I truly hope so, but I'd like to see, if not statistical evidence, at least somebody writing about outside of here.

I don't see or hear optimism from the people my Co does business with, it's doom and gloom everywhere, and no they are not all idiots. Even the broke people I know are bracing for more broke with a little govt. help, but no opportunity. We'll see, I'd love send you $10 from a flush account in 4 years after casting my next Presidential ballot for Rahm.

Since you apparently didn't bother to read the link I cited or pay any attention during the election, let's try again:

Go Google "12 million jobs created no matter who wins" and see what pops up. I'll wait.


ok, it reminded me of Jeff Goldbloom's little speech in Jurassic Park, "The economy (LIFE) finds a way")
and I believe that. A recovery was/is inevitable. But will it be sustainable enough to help? I worry more about the 20 year projections, a rebound bounce of the floor won't change those.
 
2012-11-24 06:36:29 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The Troof hurts: Maybe improve the discourse by taking the high road?

by calling people farking hypocrites.

"high road" does not mean what you think it means


in the end, there can be only one?
 
2012-11-24 06:39:05 PM  

HighOnCraic:
It's not so much disagree with him, it's disagreeing with a philosophy that has failed (trickle-down economics) and hating the idea of someone with a strong influence on Republicans in Congress continuing to push that philosophy. I definitely won't piss on his grave, but I'll be happy when that philosophy is laid to rest.


the GOP failed on damn near all fronts this past election....the country rejected their ideology and social policies while putting Obama back into an office by a landslide vote. watching the Republican response has been informative indeed.
 
2012-11-24 06:39:26 PM  
Yes, liberals want to "trick" Republicans into raising taxes, or as I call it, "convince by talking to them like responsible adults".
 
2012-11-24 06:44:22 PM  

Weaver95: HighOnCraic:
It's not so much disagree with him, it's disagreeing with a philosophy that has failed (trickle-down economics) and hating the idea of someone with a strong influence on Republicans in Congress continuing to push that philosophy. I definitely won't piss on his grave, but I'll be happy when that philosophy is laid to rest.

the GOP failed on damn near all fronts this past election....the country rejected their ideology and social policies while putting Obama back into an office by a landslide vote. watching the Republican response has been informative indeed.


it was a like watching a long episode of Intervention, the country NO: WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
 
2012-11-24 06:48:14 PM  

Evil High Priest: Weaver95: Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: "For 20 years Democrats have tried over and over to trick Republicans into breaking the pledge. It hasn't happened. This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"we are going to win this fight" Norquist continued, "The Lord of Murder demands it. On a throne of Brass atop a mountain of skulls He watches our progress. Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, he cares only that it should flow. Know also that our skulls too are welcome atop that mountain."

Blood for The Blood God!

Norquest is the polite and well mannered follower of Khorne.

Kinder and gentler Khomite?


I think he's more of a follower of Tzeentch. Grand plans that seem to have catastrophic consequences, but don't have an overall goal. They're just there to fark with people.
 
2012-11-24 06:48:52 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The Troof hurts: Maybe improve the discourse by taking the high road?

by calling people farking hypocrites.

"high road" does not mean what you think it means


Ha. Guilty. That "pissing on folk's grave" statement gets to me.
 
x23
2012-11-24 06:49:27 PM  

JohnnyC: The only young people becoming Republican are die-hard racists, bigots, and willfully ignorant.


well... also those that are weirdly politically stunted pre-adulthood as well.

like say a guy that created a fiscal policy at age 12 that is holding the nation hostage for some inexplicable reason.

also rabidly hardcore fans of overly-wordy books about choo-choo trains and acting like a douchebag that was clearly written by someone with aspergers or narcissistic personality disorder.

so they still have those golden demographics to carry them into the future!
 
2012-11-24 06:51:50 PM  
ok, it reminded me of Jeff Goldbloom's little speech in Jurassic Park, "The economy (LIFE) finds a way")
and I believe that. A recovery was/is inevitable. But will it be sustainable enough to help? I worry more about the 20 year projections, a rebound bounce of the floor won't change those.


One thing is certain: it will be far more sustainable with a balanced budget and functional federal finances than without those things. And spending cuts and major tax hikes are the first step to doing those things, not coddling the rich and funding adventuristic wars on a credit card.

There's no question though: in addition to tax and finance reform, we also need to make serious changes to how corporations and their executives interact with our society. The current system of 'base your whole operation overseas while claiming the legal protections of a US system you do everything possible not to pay into' can't continue.
 
2012-11-24 06:54:13 PM  

TV's Vinnie: What a vicious little man. Never elected or even appointed to nay political office, yet he blackmails the entire United States to do his bidding or else.

And all because he's a selfish punk who doesn't want to pay his fair share.


^This, this and this.
 
2012-11-24 06:54:43 PM  
So much facepalm.
 
2012-11-24 07:00:28 PM  

The Troof hurts: Lionel Mandrake: The Troof hurts: Maybe improve the discourse by taking the high road?

by calling people farking hypocrites.

"high road" does not mean what you think it means

Ha. Guilty. That "pissing on folk's grave" statement gets to me.


Probably hyperbole. People toss that phrase around, but I don't think anyone would actually take the trouble to piss on the dude's grave. Sometimes people say stuff on the internet that they don't really mean.

/Gotta run, my wife wants me to join her in the bathtub.
//You know, Morgan Fairchild--yeah, that's the ticket!
 
2012-11-24 07:10:22 PM  

whistleridge: Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.


What was that Democratic saying?

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time...?
 
2012-11-24 07:11:42 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge: Zeb Hesselgresser: whistleridge
These next four years are going to be politically beautiful, and not nearly as economically harmful as the doomday brigade would have you believe.

I truly hope so, but I'd like to see, if not statistical evidence, at least somebody writing about outside of here.

I don't see or hear optimism from the people my Co does business with, it's doom and gloom everywhere, and no they are not all idiots. Even the broke people I know are bracing for more broke with a little govt. help, but no opportunity. We'll see, I'd love send you $10 from a flush account in 4 years after casting my next Presidential ballot for Rahm.


You sound...concerned.
 
2012-11-24 07:13:39 PM  

whistleridge:

There's no question though: in addition to tax and finance reform, we also need to make serious changes to how corporations and their executives interact with our society. The current system of 'base your whole operation overseas while claiming the legal protections of a US system you do everything possible not to pay into' can't continue.


i'm not sure if that's gonna ever get fixed but...my thoughts on that matter would be to start stripping intellectual property protection from the guys who move themselves outta the country while still claiming to be a US company. pay to play motherf*ckers.
 
2012-11-24 07:16:33 PM  
Someone needs to walk him over to the nerds, Megyn Kelly-style and show Mr. Norquist where he went all Karl Rove.
 
2012-11-24 07:21:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Someone needs to walk him over to the nerds, Megyn Kelly-style and show Mr. Norquist where he went all Karl Rove.


Yeah, but Grover will just bring along Dean Chambers so he can eat them and their socialistic math to death.
 
2012-11-24 07:23:41 PM  

Weaver95: whistleridge:

There's no question though: in addition to tax and finance reform, we also need to make serious changes to how corporations and their executives interact with our society. The current system of 'base your whole operation overseas while claiming the legal protections of a US system you do everything possible not to pay into' can't continue.

i'm not sure if that's gonna ever get fixed but...my thoughts on that matter would be to start stripping intellectual property protection from the guys who move themselves outta the country while still claiming to be a US company. pay to play motherf*ckers.


I don't know. I think there's plenty to be done.

For example, if more than 50% of your board is American but less than 50% of your production is domestic, you pay a 75% import duty.

Or maybe you offer a significant tax savings to companies that brings jobs here, combined with a significant per capita tax penalty for each job outsourced.

I realize that's simplistic. I realize there are treaties that must be accommodated. But my point remains: there's definitely carrot and stick options open. We just need our government to be at least as creative in creating our tax structure as companies have been in avoiding it.
 
2012-11-24 07:24:27 PM  
People, please stop replying to the really really really obvious troll alt, because one giant crying baby picture showing up in this thread is enough.
 
2012-11-24 07:27:49 PM  
George H.W. Bush summed it up best: "Who the fark is Grover Norquist and wht the fark does anyone care what he says?"

/I may be paraphrasing a bit
 
2012-11-24 07:33:32 PM  
Worthington was funny for a bit. Not any more. *plonk*.

More than thirty posts have disappeared from this thread. Wonder who else is shiatting all over.
 
2012-11-24 07:41:47 PM  

Hunter_Worthington: That word you're using, "facts"? I don't think it means what you think it does.


Therein lies the problem. Facts are things that are true, regardless of whether or not you believe them. I know, that doesn't jibe with the current Conservative definition which defines 'fact' as 'a political judgement that defines reality'.
 
2012-11-24 07:46:14 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: cameroncrazy1984: Silly Jesus is a prime example of why "Change Images to Links" is my default setting

He's a prime example of why I use the ignore feature.


Trolling/harassing other Fark members: Unfortunately, disagreements can and will happen - but there is no need for them to become personal. Don't harass other users with your posts, parody links/threads, or create accounts to harass them with.
Fark accounts come with a handy Ignore Feature. Use it to filter out those posters whose comments you'd prefer not to read. Keep in mind that discussing who's on your ignore list is the opposite of ignoring. It crosses the line into trolling of other Fark members and may result in a suspension of posting privileges.
 
2012-11-24 07:46:49 PM  

Thats No Moose: Worthington was funny for a bit. Not any more. *plonk*.

More than thirty posts have disappeared from this thread. Wonder who else is shiatting all over.


This is where someone usually comes in and says that ignoring them means you're weak, or have your head in the sand, or want to be in "the fark echo chamber". Don't believe it for a second. Why entertain those that are there just to annoy and attract attention? I'll never understand.

You show me a list of "conservatives" on FARK that present cogent, rational points--and argue them logically-- and I'll find myself looking at a very short list.
 
2012-11-24 07:47:22 PM  

fusillade762: Benevolent Misanthrope: GAT_00: The heart of conservative philosophy: obstruction and refusal to ever consider anything other than your own ideas.

Sounds alot like religion, no?

It's appropriate since the GOP is behaving more like an apocalypse cult than a political party.


My point precisely. Their adherents have a highly significant overlap with apocalyptic Christians. It's rather frightening, to me at least.
 
2012-11-24 07:59:05 PM  

born_yesterday: This is where someone usually comes in and says that ignoring them means you're weak, or have your head in the sand, or want to be in "the fark echo chamber". Don't believe it for a second. Why entertain those that are there just to annoy and attract attention? I'll never understand.

You show me a list of "conservatives" on FARK that present cogent, rational points--and argue them logically-- and I'll find myself looking at a very short list.


You got to remember, there's a difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans" these days.
 
2012-11-24 08:01:07 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: You
got to remember, there's a difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans" these days.


Not according to the conservatives.
 
2012-11-24 08:05:00 PM  

Weaver95: namatad: Weaver95: i'm expecting fear/anger and conspiracy to be the Weenerss followed by the elite inner circle sacrificing someone as a scapegoat.

This would be a "rational" decision. They will never do this. It would require admitting that a mistake was made. Rove/Newt/Limbo/Grover/Palin/Bachmann? Not a chance in hell. These are the spiritual leaders, they can't kill their prophets. Rmoney/Bush? Sure, they have no value to the party anymore, but sacrificing them accomplishes nothing.

In order to fix any of the problems, they would need to get rid of the people who "let" them be so blind to the defeat in the first place. Broken primary system, broken polling system. Without fixing those problems, they will continue to be shocked and surprised!!

TBH, all they need to do is follow 538 and they dont even need to do their own polling.

yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.


Karl Rove will be sacrificed in horrible and well-deserved disgrace. That is, unless he has too much dirt on too many people to make that safe.
 
2012-11-24 08:07:47 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Not according to the conservatives.


no, that would be according to the Republicans. You've got places like The American Conservative where it's very clear at least some of the writers aren't exactly card carrying members of the GOP though they most certainly are conservatives.
 
2012-11-24 08:11:01 PM  
Why are you all responding to this blatant and clumsy troll?
 
2012-11-24 08:20:40 PM  

cryinoutloud: Maybe people who are in charge of running the entire country shouldn't go running around saying that they will NEVER do this, or that such and such will NEVER happen on their watch, like they're four years old.


This is a Bayesian problem. If your priors are 0% or 100%, no amount of objected data will change that.
 
2012-11-24 08:31:29 PM  
What actually happens when you cross the norquist?
 
2012-11-24 08:33:23 PM  

Weaver95: The Troof hurts:
How pleasant you liberals are when folks don't agree with you. farking hypocrites.

most people outside of the GOP don't like Grover Norquist very much. they see him as unrealistic at best or downright evil at worst. what's more, he really does seem to believe in his idiotic crusade. never mind how much damage it would do or the chaos it would cause...he's got his issue and he's not going to stop until everyone does what he wants.


And no matter what people do and no matter how much he gets it's never enough because nothing, NOTHING, will give him back his ice cream.

I forget, was it you who pointed out so many GOP leaders have proud tales of when they were children and their fathers taught them something about the evils of liberalism by being mean to them?
 
2012-11-24 08:35:03 PM  

jaytkay: Silly Jesus: You seem very concerned.

It's so cute when conservatives imitate adults. I love that!


Cum again?
 
2012-11-24 08:39:04 PM  
i75.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-24 08:47:52 PM  
Looks like you were lied to AGAIN by Obama, libs, you idiots:

Link
 
2012-11-24 08:48:02 PM  
You know, I actually want to see with my own eyes who these people are that make up Grover's little "Americans for Tax Reform". You now, the throngs of rabid hordes that Grover threatens to unleash upon any republican who dares to have "impure thoughts".

My guess is that the "membership list" consists of at least several thousand made-up names. The few names who may actually exist are likely to be a handful of billionaires who have a grudge against the IRS. Or maybe they just hate the idea of Democracy, period. It wouldn't be the first time the rich tried to wage a coup to take down our government. Google up "The Business Plot of 1933".

It's been said that Mister Norquist has ties to several Islamic terrorist groups and wouldn't be surprised in the least if that's true. If you want to tear America down you don't steer an airliner into a skyscraper. You hire a lobbyist like Norquist to go inside the Hallowed Halls and do some REAL damage.
 
2012-11-24 08:56:16 PM  

TheBigJerk: was it you who pointed out so many GOP leaders


If you want an example of how out of it the GOP is, Romney said it takes two parents to succeed in America while on the some stage as Obama, you know, the guy raised by a single mother who only became President.
 
2012-11-24 08:58:35 PM  
This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"Nothing has changed on the chess board since Barack Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts two years ago. Exactly the same players.


It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.
 
2012-11-24 09:00:24 PM  

tony41454: tony41454: Looks like you were lied to AGAIN by Obama, libs

It is the mark of the modern "conservative" angry, misinformed idiot that they universally refer to anyone who disagrees with them as some form of the word "Liberal", without regard to the actual political position of the person to whom they refer.

It is safe to note this predeliction as a mark of their character.

 
2012-11-24 09:00:34 PM  

Super Chronic: This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"Nothing has changed on the chess board since Barack Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts two years ago. Exactly the same players.

It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.


If we can hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!
 
2012-11-24 09:03:34 PM  

Super Chronic: It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.


and Andy Reid used up all the time outs last quarter....
 
2012-11-24 09:04:45 PM  

tony41454: Looks like you were lied to AGAIN by Obama, libs, you idiots:

Link


"Moreover, even if Obama gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won't make a dent in the $16.3 trillion national debt."

So clearly the right thing to do is provide more tax cuts for the wealthy...
 
2012-11-24 09:09:19 PM  

WhyteRaven74: Super Chronic: It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.

and Andy Reid used up all the time outs last quarter....


And he forgot to warn Chris Webber...
 
2012-11-24 09:15:59 PM  

whistleridge: jaytkay: Silly Jesus: You seem very concerned.

It's so cute when conservatives imitate adults. I love that!

It's like a little girl trying to walk in Mommy's heels: every move dumps her on her ass and makes her cry, but darned if the spunky little thing doesn't keep on trying. So cute!


www.allgraphics123.com
 
2012-11-24 09:18:59 PM  

Super Chronic: This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"Nothing has changed on the chess board since Barack Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts two years ago. Exactly the same players.

It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.


I'll take "Mixed Sports Metaphors" for $200, please Alex.
 
2012-11-24 09:24:35 PM  

TV's Vinnie: You know, I actually want to see with my own eyes who these people are that make up Grover's little "Americans for Tax Reform". You now, the throngs of rabid hordes that Grover threatens to unleash upon any republican who dares to have "impure thoughts".

My guess is that the "membership list" consists of at least several thousand made-up names. The few names who may actually exist are likely to be a handful of billionaires who have a grudge against the IRS. Or maybe they just hate the idea of Democracy, period. It wouldn't be the first time the rich tried to wage a coup to take down our government. Google up "The Business Plot of 1933".

It's been said that Mister Norquist has ties to several Islamic terrorist groups and wouldn't be surprised in the least if that's true. If you want to tear America down you don't steer an airliner into a skyscraper. You hire a lobbyist like Norquist to go inside the Hallowed Halls and do some REAL damage.


Nah, I'm sure there's lots of real names on that list. Conservative sites for years would have links to his page, and after all, all it takes is putting in an email address and a click and you're on his list as one of the Teeming Millions (h/t to Cecil Adams).

But it infuriates me when I'd see commercials like "In our household, just like yours, we can't just 'Raise taxes', we have to cut spending. Oppose any tax increases" blah blah blah. One, you most certainly can increase revenue in a household - find additional work, sell stuff you don't need, and whatnot. If your financial situation is minor, maybe you cut some of your expenses, or get a second part-time job, one or the other. If it is dire, the solution isn't to cut expenses to the point that you stop eating food and don't pay the water bill so that you don't have to get a second job. If it gets to the point that you have to cut so much that you can't eat, at that point the second part-time job might just be the answer.

Almost every major economist is pretty clear that we will get out of this via getting a handle on spending AND by raising additional revenue, not just one or the other. Norquist's "No Taxes Ever Ever Ever" pledge is stupid for this reason. It robs (not really, but he makes them think so) those that sign it of flexibility in ever solving problems, just like the Pro-Life Forever No Exceptions pledges lead to people awkwardly answering questions about rape.

It's good to see him get a bit of comeuppance. Will it last? Probably not, but the stupid thing is the only thing he gains by "winning" here is tax increases on EVERYBODY, rather than tax increases on a few.
 
2012-11-24 09:33:38 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.


Relax; the Fark Liberal Special Ops team has his number. Lie back and enjoy it.

Or not. 

/Did he say Norquist is an anal-retentive dirt-eating troglodyte? No he didn't. QED.
 
2012-11-24 09:36:31 PM  

Flaming Yawn: ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.

Relax; the Fark Liberal Special Ops team has his number. Lie back and enjoy it.

Or not. 

/Did he say Norquist is an anal-retentive dirt-eating troglodyte? No he didn't. QED.


Huh?
 
2012-11-24 09:39:05 PM  

Superjew: What actually happens when you cross the norquist?


Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
 
2012-11-24 09:39:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Super Chronic: This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"Nothing has changed on the chess board since Barack Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts two years ago. Exactly the same players.

It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.

I'll take "Mixed Sports Metaphors" for $200, please Alex.


If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
 
2012-11-24 09:42:57 PM  
America is full of these idiotic figures your raise up, past all logic, to positions of wisdom.

Only the US looks at grover norquist and ayn rand as visionaries. And that's only because you were told they were.
 
2012-11-24 09:44:39 PM  

GAT_00: Variants of the same thing. Conservatives are reactionary. It's inherent in the philosophy of never embracing the new and always pretending things used to be better. That's conservatism.


No. Conservatives resist change. Reactionaries attempt to revert change.

It's a pretty substantial difference. A conservative position, essentially, is fine with how things are in the present or at least wants to minimize long-term policy change in fixing short-term problems, where a reactionary wishes to make things like the past.

The US's current actual conservative movement is a faction of the Democratic party.
 
2012-11-24 09:45:31 PM  

Silly Jesus: Flaming Yawn: ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.

Relax; the Fark Liberal Special Ops team has his number. Lie back and enjoy it.

Or not. 

/Did he say Norquist is an anal-retentive dirt-eating troglodyte? No he didn't. QED.

Huh?


Sorry, typo on my part: meant to write: "did he (Silly Jesus) NOT say Norquist..."

Thanks for catching it.
 
2012-11-24 09:46:05 PM  

Flaming Yawn: I'd call your plan a reductio ad absurdam but


(touches nose, smiles and winks)
 
2012-11-24 09:46:28 PM  

fusillade762: cameroncrazy1984: Super Chronic: This isn't my first rodeo," Norquist told the Journal.

"Nothing has changed on the chess board since Barack Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts two years ago. Exactly the same players.

It's fourth and 15 and you're looking at a full court press.

I'll take "Mixed Sports Metaphors" for $200, please Alex.

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.


That's SO 36 minutes ago . . .
 
2012-11-24 09:50:30 PM  
theknuckler_33:
--------------
jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

--------------
Got any figures for how 'insignificant' that increased revenue would be? Because it would be interesting to compare the increased revenue from those tax increases to the savings from, say cutting funding for NPR and PBS. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the increased revenue will be FAR more than the savings from those things.


According to the CBO, letting the bush-era tax cuts expire on income over 250k will get us almost $1 Trillion over 10 years ($100 Billion per year on average): Link to ThinkProgress article
 
2012-11-24 09:58:50 PM  

Flaming Yawn: Silly Jesus: Flaming Yawn: ItchyMcDoogle: Silly Jesus: TheBigJerk: Derpity doo da, Derpity day, my oh my what a wonderful librul echo chamber day!

Was wondering when you would show..I guess it takes time to fill up the seltzer bottle and have fresh cream pies plus im sure the clown outfit is a biatch to put on. Thats pretty much what I see when you post plus riding a unicycle and holding a small umbrella.

Relax; the Fark Liberal Special Ops team has his number. Lie back and enjoy it.

Or not. 

/Did he say Norquist is an anal-retentive dirt-eating troglodyte? No he didn't. QED.

Huh?

Sorry, typo on my part: meant to write: "did he (Silly Jesus) NOT say Norquist..."

Thanks for catching it.


I was more curious about the Special Ops thing. I usually find them simply delicious, but something makes me doubt that the Fark version has glistening abs.
 
2012-11-24 10:07:57 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: You got to remember, there's a difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans" these days.


You have True Republicans and RINOs.
 
2012-11-24 10:26:33 PM  
At the moment there are at least three Republican Parties.

#1 Corporate Conservative
#2 Tea Party
#3 Fundamentalists

Each one has its own power base, ideology, and agenda. None are beholden to the other two. To do a budget deal these days means each group must be appeased separately. They can, in fact, be treated as separate parties. Divide et impera.
 
2012-11-24 10:44:07 PM  

tinyarena: At the moment there are at least three Republican Parties.

#1 Corporate Conservative
#2 Tea Party
#3 Fundamentalists

Each one has its own power base, ideology, and agenda. None are beholden to the other two. To do a budget deal these days means each group must be appeased separately. They can, in fact, be treated as separate parties. Divide et impera.


#2 and #3 both serve #1, but most of #2 and #3 don't understand that.
 
2012-11-24 11:14:51 PM  

mittromneysdog: tinyarena: At the moment there are at least three Republican Parties.

#1 Corporate Conservative
#2 Tea Party
#3 Fundamentalists

Each one has its own power base, ideology, and agenda. None are beholden to the other two. To do a budget deal these days means each group must be appeased separately. They can, in fact, be treated as separate parties. Divide et impera.

#2 and #3 both serve #1, but most of #2 and #3 don't understand that.


Don't underestimate how #3 has dominated #2 and is trying to control the show by being willing to be populist in order to banish #1.
 
2012-11-24 11:26:45 PM  

madgonad: whistleridge: I'll bet you $10: four years from now, the unemployment rate will be under 6%, the budget will be clearly on its way to being balanced, the overwhelming majority of the country will have at least some health insurance, and GOP candidates will be scrambling to claim what credit they can, just like they do with Clinton these days:

I would take that action. The only thing that is likely to happen is the health insurance, because Obamacare isn't going to be repealed. People will probably be cool with it by then.

However, there is really never going to be a recovery that benefits all of society. The Dow will get ever higher, but we have clearly offshored our future. The only reason unemployment (U3) is under 8% now is because so many people have shifted up to U4,5, or 6. The problem is that we aren't creating wealth - we are borrowing it. The notion that a nation can exist almost solely as a service economy is just insanity. Farming, mining, and manufacturing are necessary to a healthy economy and the greedy 1% are enjoying the fatter margins provided by offshoring, but this undermines everything.

We are following the Brits into the chorus, I just hope our avarice won't take the world with us. Who knows who might get elected after the next recession?


If that was the case, U6 should be increasing, right?This page (among others) say that U6 is doing the opposite.
 
2012-11-24 11:30:50 PM  

Superjew: What actually happens when you cross the norquist?


With what?
 
2012-11-24 11:37:35 PM  
Hey Republicans, you do realize that if you say "no" to Grover, he really can't do anything. It's not like he's some sort of authority figure. I really don't get why you all are so eager for him to drop his pants so you can start sucking.
 
2012-11-24 11:38:41 PM  

TheMysticS: You're a supreme douche. I hope none of your political dreams ever come true.


Look at his account date. This is exactly like what the younger generation is like. They're like the right wing filth in Greece. You have your own group of uneducated angry garbage to deal with for the next couple decades.
 
2012-11-25 12:14:15 AM  

heinekenftw: Hey Republicans, you do realize that if you say "no" to Grover, he really can't do anything. It's not like he's some sort of authority figure. I really don't get why you all are so eager for him to drop his pants so you can start sucking.


I'm pretty sure he's got video of each of them having nasty gay sex, or eve maybe their beloved St. Ronnie doing so. Its blackmail potential is the only thing that makes sense.
 
2012-11-25 12:17:49 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

"No one is caving," 


Who gets to tell Grover that the GOP can no longer play the pure obstructionism game during Obama's second term because it would be political suicide?

I was thinking maybe a singing gorrilla-gram but then I'm a traditionalist.
 
2012-11-25 12:27:16 AM  

Homegrown: I don't know guys...I kind of want to sponsor him. We need more of this kind of hard hitting and peer reviewed posts.


Ugh. Please don't.
 
2012-11-25 01:18:59 AM  
No matter how many times I pull my beat to crap Corolla next to a BMW or Lexus at the pumps, does any of the fuel going into the Lexus trickle down into my tank.

When you go to a Doctor or a surgeon, you're counting on their schooling and expertise so when the zero hour comes and you're on the table, you have a good chance of waking up and going home better than when you arrived.

Going under the knife with someone screaming about how they learned everything when they were 12 and that anything learned after 25 is useless would cause me to piss myself. Why the hell is anyone even considering this asshat's philosophy (if it can be called that) is utterly beyond me.

It's a Party of derps, the Party that is correct above all others, with Truthiness and Gallup showing the way. The annoying thing is we all get a taste of their shiat sandwich, and sullen, dumbly surprised expressions when their plans yet again blow up in their face.

Another early 40s farker the other day recalled how when they were growing up, our Dads had all sorts of jobs, we managed to have nice houses to live in, food on the table, and usually went on a pretty OK vacation once a year. That's all destroyed, now.

I'm sick of the retard coming back telling me how things will be different if we give their same shiat another chance yet again, because anything else is utterly wrong. History is a biatch if you don't look back; I see nothing but growth from 1946 to 1979, until Reagan came in and started this whole trip to being kicked in the balls. We had a nice respite with Clinton, then Chimpy got into power and mission accomplished.

The Repubs have done the impossible and succeeded in tying themselves to everything old and busted. Now we get to see another idiot mindlessly screaming that their way is best, even when all the facts show otherwise.

With Norquist and the rest of the Teabaggers, we're reaping the results of having underfunded education for decades. Add a little religion to the mix (and a dash of stunted self growth and sociopathy) and we've got idiot two-year olds who won't take no for an answer.

Time to go. Better yet, GTFO.
 
2012-11-25 01:41:41 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: ...a peaceful, purely heterosexual society.


*plonk*

Sorry nothing personal but factoring your post's noise to signal ratio (ie All to none) is kind of like dividing by zero while crossing the streams.

TL,DR?

[curlybill]
 
2012-11-25 02:12:34 AM  
Not sure how Grover sees this playing out, since the tax cuts are going to expire if congress can't come to some sort of compromise.

He's urging his troops to hold tight: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

^^^This doesn't make sense. By not compromising, the GOP is going to get hammered. Every Democrat running in the next election is going to point out how the Republicans wouldn't compromise and taxes went up for everybody. You can't win elections with just two percent of the voters on your side.

Grover is espousing a strategy that will hasten the destruction of the GOP, possibly the final nail in the coffin.
 
2012-11-25 02:17:08 AM  

Hunter_Worthington: I'm a hate filled piece of shiat and should probably be kicked in the balls.


This is the part where I kick you in the balls.

True story.
 
2012-11-25 02:22:12 AM  

Weaver95: Superjew: What actually happens when you cross the norquist?

Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.


So it's like going plaid?
 
2012-11-25 03:36:50 AM  
proceed Grover....
 
2012-11-25 05:52:55 AM  
When the parties are balanced, elections are balanced. They tend to flip between red and blue. But when the parties are unbalanced, they don't. 1869-1885, 1897-1913, 1922-1933, 1933-1969 were all periods where generally only one party ruled the presidency. (With the exception of Eisenhower in 53-61). If you look at the trend it's time for another period of one-party control for a stretch. The audacity and ignorance of the GOP in recent years will either force them to change or they will die and the Democrats will rule the next quarter to half century. (Hopefully)
 
2012-11-25 08:02:00 AM  
Norquist bangs his fist on the desk.

"I want Fegelein," he shouts.

"Fegelein, Fegelein, Fegelein!"
 
2012-11-25 08:13:45 AM  

jtrockville: According to the CBO, letting the bush-era tax cuts expire on income over 250k will get us almost $1 Trillion over 10 years ($100 Billion per year on average)


Yeah, but that's not ENOUGH to close the deficit, and therefore, we must not do that and cut funding for PBS and NPR instead.
 
2012-11-25 08:20:33 AM  
red5ish:Grover is espousing a strategy that will hasten the destruction of the GOP, possibly the final nail in the coffin.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-25 12:43:14 PM  
The joy of gerrymandering against democrats means that they are in districts with 70-80% D supporters and Republicans are in districts with 55% R supporters. This limits the number of D seats BUT makes them all a little safer than Rs for relection.
Republican congressmen are all on a knifes edge if they do something stupid. So raising taxes might screw them over while the Democrats have a bigger buffer.
 
2012-11-25 01:06:05 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: How come so many people care about Norquist's 12-year-old self's plan to slash most taxes into nonexistence, but nobody cares about my 12-year-old self's plan to genetically engineer real-life Pokemon and ban all mornings?


Although I'm not in agreement with the Pokemon thing, I could definitely get behind the plan to ban mornings.
 
2012-11-25 11:31:51 PM  

jjorsett: DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.



So you want the republicans to lie?
 
2012-11-26 04:19:03 AM  

Silly Jesus: [ninagreipel.files.wordpress.com image 600x398]


Thanks, we didn't really need to see your self-portrait.
 
2012-11-26 04:38:11 AM  
So today I'm talking with a friend of mine, and I says,
"One thing that's wrong with this country. Rush Limbaugh, he's got mon-ay?"
"Yes, Rush Limbaugh has lots of money."
"Michael Savage, he's got mon-ay?"
"Yes, lots of people buying his books..."
"Glenn Beck, he's got mon-ay?"
"Oh definitely!"
"How about Michelle Malkin?"
"Yup".
"Ann Coulter."
"Yup."
"Big Bird."
"...No."
"Bingo."
 
2012-11-26 10:09:15 AM  

One day Wikipedia will list
Grover Norquist
as one of the architects of the
demise of the
GOP

 

/book it done
//Nate Silver told me so
 
Displayed 277 of 277 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report