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.

(Reason Magazine)   Grover Norquist on the Fiscal Cliff, his tax pledge, and being called the GOP's "Rasputin", or 22 minutes of your life you'll never get back   (reason.com) divider line 108
    More: Stupid, Rasputin, Grover Norquist, GOP, Nick Gillespie, Americans for Tax Reform, The Declaration of Independents, illegitimacy  
•       •       •

974 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Dec 2012 at 4:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-19 03:46:39 PM  
I can think of more than a few Dems (and even a few Republicans) who wouldn't mind the comparison being completed.
 
2012-12-19 03:55:23 PM  
Rasputin begat Mastodon's Crack the Skye (and that's like 44+ minutes). If Norquist can add something that awesome to the world, he can keep breathing.
 
// though we should seriously look into rescinding his lobbying privileges
// I know there's no legal way to do that absent jailing him, and even then, he retains the RIGHT to lobby, just not the ability
 
2012-12-19 04:00:45 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Rasputin begat Mastodon's Crack the Skye (and that's like 44+ minutes). If Norquist can add something that awesome to the world, he can keep breathing.
 
// though we should seriously look into rescinding his lobbying privileges
// I know there's no legal way to do that absent jailing him, and even then, he retains the RIGHT to lobby, just not the ability


Okay, let's pretend that the United States passes a law outlawing lobbyists.

I am a private citizen who wants a law changed, for instance doing away with local blue laws so that I can buy beer on Sunday. Or I'd like to see a law forcing food manufacturers to denote the presence of Genetically Modified Ingredients on packaging if they choose to use them.

Please sell me on the idea of a lobbyist by explaining what advantage a lobbyist system would have in getting the law changed.
 
2012-12-19 04:16:23 PM  
What we need is a prohibition of the corrupting influence of lobbying and a disassociation between preferential treatment of donors to a politician.  Right now it is a case of "give big cash to campaign" "get hella kickbacks" which then gets us shiat like SOPA and NDAA and stuff.
 
Lobbying is important.  Corruption is the problem.
 
2012-12-19 04:20:22 PM  

ox45tallboy: Please sell me on the idea of a lobbyist by explaining what advantage a lobbyist system would have in getting the law changed.



No.
 
// can't I want HIS privileges revoked - as he's been abusing the hell out of them - without wanting yours and mine revoked as well?
 
2012-12-19 04:29:05 PM  

Elandriel: What we need is a prohibition of the corrupting influence of lobbying and a disassociation between preferential treatment of donors to a politician. Right now it is a case of "give big cash to campaign" "get hella kickbacks" which then gets us shiat like SOPA and NDAA and stuff.

Lobbying is important. Corruption is the problem.


But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?

In a capitalist society ruled by democracy, people will vote for whomever they feel will best represent their own interests, not who will do the best job for the country. They will also tend to make donations or volunteer their time in order to get others to vote for this same person.

Theoretically, you would start out by supporting a politician who already supports the issue that most concerns you, but when it comes to special interest groups within business, it's not likely that it would make a hill of beans to most politicians what regulation gets changed. Therefore, the way you convince the politicians is with donations.

This is how you get Congress voting on things that might affect constituents in 2 out of the 435 districts, but tons of Congress Critters talking about what effect it would have and why they voted the way they did.
 
2012-12-19 04:31:05 PM  
He wishes his dick was that big. 
 
2012-12-19 04:31:19 PM  
being called the GOP's "Rasputin"

So the GOP is going to try to drown him in a bathtub?
 
2012-12-19 04:31:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: No.

// can't I want HIS privileges revoked - as he's been abusing the hell out of them - without wanting yours and mine revoked as well?


That's what I meant by the question. What would the average citizen lose by revoking everyone's lobbying privileges vs. what would the special interest groups, specifically those motivated purely by economic factors?

In other words, what do lobbyists do for me that is better than what I could do for myself, especially if people lobbying for interests I like are having to fight against those lobbying for the polar opposite things?
 
2012-12-19 04:33:22 PM  
Norquist is the living embodiment of the phrase "waste of flesh".
 
2012-12-19 04:33:33 PM  
Norquist's neckbeard has been poisoned, shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, thrown in a river, and then burned but yet it still stubbornly has not left this mortal chin.
 
2012-12-19 04:36:12 PM  
Piece of human garbage. When he dies, we should burn his body in a dumpster and float it out to sea off of NJ.
 
2012-12-19 04:38:13 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Sir Neckbeard D'Voidoffunk
 
2012-12-19 04:38:25 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Piece of human garbage. When he dies, we should burn his body in a dumpster and float it out to sea off of into NJ.


FTFY
 
2012-12-19 04:38:45 PM  
"Norquist" is the Swedish word for one of those floaty turds that keeps coming back up after you flush.
 
2012-12-19 04:41:52 PM  
thefourfirkins.com
 
2012-12-19 04:41:57 PM  

ox45tallboy: But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?


Just because the Republicans didn't win doesn't mean Citizens United wasn't a threat. Look at how retarded Romney was and how incompetent his campaign was; and he STILL was close.
 
2012-12-19 04:43:55 PM  
Does he say anything about his being in a leadership position in the NRA?
 
2012-12-19 04:44:20 PM  
Nobody wants to raise taxes. The point is we have to raise taxes. The Democratic response to this is "Well that sucks but we'd better get to work." The repub response is "La la la! I can't hear you! Needer needer needer!"
 
2012-12-19 04:44:42 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: Piece of human garbage. When he dies, we should burn his body in a dumpster and float it out to sea off of NJ.


What a horrible horrible thing to do

/to New Jersey
 
2012-12-19 04:45:52 PM  

ox45tallboy: Dr Dreidel: No.

// can't I want HIS privileges revoked - as he's been abusing the hell out of them - without wanting yours and mine revoked as well?

That's what I meant by the question. What would the average citizen lose by revoking everyone's lobbying privileges vs. what would the special interest groups, specifically those motivated purely by economic factors?

In other words, what do lobbyists do for me that is better than what I could do for myself, especially if people lobbying for interests I like are having to fight against those lobbying for the polar opposite things?



Lobbyists may well be the people that want to effect change, rather than simply being their hired guns/goons. The right to petition our government applies to everyone, a lobbyist is simply someone who exercises that right (normally, on behalf of a special-interest group, but they have a right to lobby as well).
 
If I want all guns banned, and you want none guns banned, we would both need to lobby our government to make that change (or get elected ourselves). Of course, since I have to work for a living and you live in Atlanta, we'll need to hire people to go to our reps in DC during their office hours to suggest these laws - those people we hire are lobbyists. You could also go to their district offices, but I assume you work for a living as well.
 
It's no different than hiring someone to store and take care of your money - we call it a "bank" and the people "bankers". Actually, the difference is that the Constitution says I have a right to lobby, whereas I have no right to a bank account (even an empty one).
 
2012-12-19 04:46:22 PM  
"The people who attack me as 'Rasputin' think that the Republicans ACTUAL FISCAL CONSERVATIVES WHO CARE ABOUT THE NATIONAL DEBT truly want to raise taxes,"
 
2012-12-19 04:47:03 PM  
This is the guy who's banging a muslim, right?
 
2012-12-19 04:47:23 PM  
ox45tallboy:
But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?
 

Not on a national level, but on a local level real damage is being done.
 
2012-12-19 04:48:36 PM  

Wooly Bully: "Norquist" is the Swedish word for one of those floaty turds that keeps coming back up after you flush.

 
You should get Dan Savage to promote that.
 
2012-12-19 04:49:44 PM  

olddeegee: ox45tallboy:
But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?
 
Not on a national level, but on a local level real damage is being done.


Our county commisioners just heald their 2nd special board meeting regarding (most likely stemming from the FW:FW:FW email) the "fact" that people on welfare make more money by not working. They are wasting taxpayer money as county board members talking about shiat that gets decided at a State/Federal level.
 
2012-12-19 04:50:05 PM  
I would have went with Iago.
 
2012-12-19 04:51:18 PM  
Nah, cuz I don't click on Reason or Grover Norquist.

I WOULD like to kick him in the nuts, hard, just once.
 
2012-12-19 04:53:02 PM  
a pledge to Grover Norquist is a pledge to refuse to do one's job under Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution
 
2012-12-19 04:56:19 PM  

ghare: Nah, cuz I don't click on Reason or Grover Norquist.

I WOULD like to kick him in the nuts, hard, just once.


You will have to sweep the republicans that are currently dangling off of them first. However, it does look like some of them are falling off on their own volition.
 
2012-12-19 04:56:28 PM  

Dr Dreidel: since I have to work for a living and you live in Atlanta


I caught that.

Dr Dreidel: It's no different than hiring someone to store and take care of your money - we call it a "bank" and the people "bankers". Actually, the difference is that the Constitution says I have a right to lobby, whereas I have no right to a bank account (even an empty one).


That's my point. The Constitution says I have a right to bear arms, but it doesn't mean I get to have my own private army. (see: Erik Prince of Blackwater Xe Services Academi no longer living in the US, and he has governmental support of his private army). The Constitution gives me the right to vote, but I can't hire someone to vote on my behalf.

In this same way, what if we only let private citizens lobby the government on their own behalf, and did away with hired guns who lobby the government on behalf of anyone or any cause, as long as someone is willing to sign a check? If the problem is that big, why wouldn't I get off my butt in Atlanta and you take a few days off from work, OR we wait until our respective representatives return to their districts between sessions, and go talk to them ourselves?
 
2012-12-19 04:57:24 PM  

ghare: Nah, cuz I don't click on Reason or Grover Norquist.

I WOULD like to kick him in the nuts, hard, just once.


Why only once?
 
2012-12-19 04:57:42 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

The GOP's Rasputin? Okay, I'll buy that.
 
2012-12-19 04:58:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Just because the Republicans didn't win doesn't mean Citizens United wasn't a threat. Look at how retarded Romney was and how incompetent his campaign was; and he STILL was close.


olddeegee: Not on a national level, but on a local level real damage is being done.


For the record, I was being sarcastic. I still believe this is one of the worst decisions ever, as it concentrates political power on economic rather than social interests.
 
2012-12-19 04:59:42 PM  
Oops. Did I just Godwin the thread?
 
2012-12-19 05:00:13 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: ghare: Nah, cuz I don't click on Reason or Grover Norquist.

I WOULD like to kick him in the nuts, hard, just once.

Why only once?


Cuz I'm not a SADIST.
 
2012-12-19 05:00:30 PM  

enry: Insatiable Jesus: Piece of human garbage. When he dies, we should burn his body in a dumpster and float it out to sea off of NJ.

What a horrible horrible thing to do

/to New Jersey


They won't notice.

If they did, they'd just feed him to Chris Christie.
 
2012-12-19 05:00:33 PM  

ox45tallboy: But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?


Just because Obama won doesn't mean it wasn't a shameful farce of an election. It was nasty and stupid and despite the nonstop ads barraging everyone round the clock for over a year, there's a laundry list of issues of great importance to the country that were barely discussed or not discussed at all: Internet privacy, the patriot act, the drug war and our relationship with Mexico, homelessness and poverty...all because debating these issues and proposing ideas to help solve the problem them wasn't of financial interest to the money men footing bill for the whole ridiculous show.
 
2012-12-19 05:03:49 PM  

ox45tallboy: Please sell me on the idea of a lobbyist by explaining what advantage a lobbyist system would have in getting the law changed.



You're one guy who has the energy to contact your legislator. Lots of other guys probably agree with you, but they'd rather hang out with their kids, or go fishing, or watch  WWE RAW than call their legislator's office, so your legislator doesn't even know those other guys exist. You have one voice, and it's easy to get lost in the shuffle. Your legislator isn't trying to ignore you, but she's very busy and it takes some effort to get on her radar.
 
So you and those other guys manage to get organized - maybe one of you is a natural leader, or maybe a brewing company with a vested interest in the outcome gives y'all a little shove. Either way, you get together and hire a professional - someone who knows the legislator's aid by name, someone who knows when her schedule may be a little more open, someone who's done this kind of thing before. Maybe some of you guys live in different states, so now the expert you've hired can tell several legislators, not just one, that he represents their constituents. Now, you have multiple targets. All of these factors lead to a greater likelihood of success.
 
Is this the only way to do it? No. Is it the best way? Maybe not. But's it's not nonsensical.
 
2012-12-19 05:05:03 PM  

CorporatePerson: Just because Obama won doesn't mean it wasn't a shameful farce of an election.


I lol'd.
 
2012-12-19 05:05:04 PM  
How did this guy become relevant, again?
 
2012-12-19 05:07:04 PM  

ghare: I WOULD like to kick him in the nuts, hard, just once.


binaryapi.ap.org

Get in line.
 
2012-12-19 05:08:07 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: How did this guy become relevant, again?


This one time, he was 12.
 
2012-12-19 05:08:13 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: How did this guy become relevant, again?


If you have a couple of hours of your life to spare, just ask him.
 
2012-12-19 05:10:23 PM  

ox45tallboy: In this same way, what if we only let private citizens lobby the government on their own behalf, and did away with hired guns who lobby the government on behalf of anyone or any cause, as long as someone is willing to sign a check? If the problem is that big, why wouldn't I get off my butt in Atlanta and you take a few days off from work, OR we wait until our respective representatives return to their districts between sessions, and go talk to them ourselves?



Because the lobbyists are private citizens as well. They have a right to lobby the government regardless of cashing a paycheck. I think the bigger problem is that we don't have more concerned citizens groups to counter the gigantic lobbying firms and PACs, even when it's not Big Block of Cheese Day.
 
// been wanting to see a FarkPAC for a while
// if anyone wants to go Colberty, I volunteer to be the bag man for such a concern - I don't live too far from the FEC's HQ...
 
2012-12-19 05:10:31 PM  
Funny now all of a sudden what he called "raising taxes" is no longer "raising taxes" because the GOP wants to do it. But it was "raising taxes" when Obama was going to do it.

How is not everyone calling bullshiat on this?
 
2012-12-19 05:12:18 PM  

BMulligan: Is this the only way to do it? No. Is it the best way? Maybe not. But's it's not nonsensical.


I agree completely that it does seem to flow from simple expediency. But this is why we have laws, because the most expedient things for one's own benefit are often harmful to others.

I'm mainly most opposed to career lobbyists, who argue for multiple interests based on whoever coughs up the cash for their influence. While they may be able to make a convincing argument, it tends to be little more than a paid endorsement by a celebrity, but it does seem to be about as effective.

We have a system of registering lobbyists in our country, so at least we can keep track of them. However, this doesn't preclude any politician from meeting with any of their constituents, even if those constituents are not registered lobbyists . Why not do away with all of the lobbyists, specifically those who do enough to require their current registration as such? What would happen to Washington politics, and what significant loss of communication with my elected representatives would I as a private citizen (or, let's say a member of an advocacy organization such as Lambda, NORML, or even the NRA) see?
 
2012-12-19 05:12:27 PM  

ox45tallboy: Dr Dreidel: No.

// can't I want HIS privileges revoked - as he's been abusing the hell out of them - without wanting yours and mine revoked as well?

That's what I meant by the question. What would the average citizen lose by revoking everyone's lobbying privileges vs. what would the special interest groups, specifically those motivated purely by economic factors?

In other words, what do lobbyists do for me that is better than what I could do for myself, especially if people lobbying for interests I like are having to fight against those lobbying for the polar opposite things?


Very little. Little people can't afford lobbyists. It's rarely relevant, however. Special interests completely outclass us little people, in terms of influence, even without lobbyists. They don't need lobbyists to dominate the political process against us. Lobbyists are mostly for struggles between competing special interests.

Think about it. If lobbyists are removed from the picture, the special interests still hugely outclass you in terms of available political capital, funds, manpower, connections, experience, and available manhours. The only way you would have to compete would be to organize your fellow little people, and at the point where you'd become effective, you'd have already become a special interest group yourself.

Lobbyists are only relevant to little people in that they struggle on behalf of the special interest groups you like against the lobbyists of the special interest groups you don't like. Remove the lobbyists from the picture, and all you've done is changed it from "two groups who don't care about me struggling for two other groups who don't care about me" to "two groups who don't care about me struggling."
 
2012-12-19 05:12:38 PM  

ox45tallboy: Elandriel: What we need is a prohibition of the corrupting influence of lobbying and a disassociation between preferential treatment of donors to a politician. Right now it is a case of "give big cash to campaign" "get hella kickbacks" which then gets us shiat like SOPA and NDAA and stuff.

Lobbying is important. Corruption is the problem.

But didn't the 2012 election prove that Citizens United was no threat to Democracy?

In a capitalist society ruled by democracy, people will vote for whomever they feel will best represent their own interests, not who will do the best job for the country. They will also tend to make donations or volunteer their time in order to get others to vote for this same person.

Theoretically, you would start out by supporting a politician who already supports the issue that most concerns you, but when it comes to special interest groups within business, it's not likely that it would make a hill of beans to most politicians what regulation gets changed. Therefore, the way you convince the politicians is with donations.

This is how you get Congress voting on things that might affect constituents in 2 out of the 435 districts, but tons of Congress Critters talking about what effect it would have and why they voted the way they did.


on a national level, CU seems to have failed. the problem is the MILLIONS being poured into state and local elections, as well as the Republicans having the forethought to hold as many states (governorships and state houses) as possible from 2010-12. Then, they gerrymandered the living fark out of every state they could. If we had, like Maine, where Electoral college votes went to district winners, we would be preparing for President Romney.

Rachel Maddow had an excellent few segments the other week.

Link
 
2012-12-19 05:14:09 PM  
Obama: I want to have taxes for some to go back what they are currently planned to or even less.

GOP and Norquist: YOU ARE RAISING TAXES!!!!

GOP: We want to have taxes for some (even more than Obama but they are middle class so fark them) to go back what they are currently planned to or even less.

GOP and Norquist: This is NOT raising taxes!!

Serious, this out and out lying and no one calling the GOP our on it pisses me off so much.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

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