From around the blogroll: the Paul Ryan reactions

One thing is certain: for the second election in a row, the Republican presidential nominee’s vice presidential selection is making huge waves, on both the right and the left. The Democrats see the selection of Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI 1) as a real target, a chance to try to attack former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) on the austerity program, while Republican conservatives are energized with the selection of someone who will lock in the economic conservative positions.

From Karen:

Paul Ryan is Pretty Popular With Seniors, Could Also Help With Young Vote

Earlier today some Democrat was on Fox News – I think it was Doug Schoen – and he basically said that seniors aren’t really interested in making any financial sacrifices so their children and grandchildren can have a brighter future. I thought it was kind of an odd thing to say, it certainly doesn’t pertain to most people I know.

Well, it looks like Schoen had it wrong. Hot Air highlighted a Rasmussen poll from a month or so ago that had some interesting findings. One of them is that the Democrats’ claims that Ryan would “throw grandma over a cliff” meme didn’t work. Ryan happens to be pretty popular with American seniors.

For even more counterintuitive results, look at Ryan’s standing among seniors.  Despite the attacks on Ryan over his budget plan, he’s easily the most liked of the short-listers among likely voters 65 years of age and over, with a 52/29 favorability rating.  His “very favorable” rating of 31% in the 65+ group is more than 10 points better than the other shortlisters in the Rasmussen survey (again, save Rice).  Jindal did well, too, with a 44/28, as did Pawlenty with a 40/30 and Portman at 37/26, but Ryan’s draw among seniors outpaced all of them.   Ryan has plenty of room to be defined in either direction with 35% of voters overall not having an opinion, but that’s only true of 20% of seniors — and Ryan already has a majority of them on his side.

More at the link.

From Allahpundit on Hot Air:

Romney rolls the dice

Has there ever been a campaign that went, literally overnight, from being about nothing to leaping neck-deep into the most treacherous, dangerous issue in American politics? Until last night, I thought Romney was running for president because he wanted to be president, full stop. Everything about him suggested personal ambition over vision — the endless flip-flops, the extreme caution on the trail, the negative-ad carpet-bombing of Gingrich and Santorum in the primaries. Then I wake up this morning and find he’s made the boldest move on entitlement reform in modern U.S. history, all but gambling his candidacy on the public’s ability to not only see through Democratic Mediscare smears but to embrace a reform agenda. I don’t know how to process it. I respect Romney tremendously for it, but it just doesn’t compute. It’s like watching C-3PO lead the raid on the Death Star.

I’ve seen a dozen posts online this morning marveling at how he’s now abandoned his “referendum” approach to the election — i.e. “vote for me because Obama’s terrible” — in favor of a “choice” approach, but that doesn’t remotely capture the boldness of this shift. It’s not just that he’s given Obama his wish by making the election a clear choice, it’s that he’s made it a choice about the most momentous, fraught domestic policy dilemma the country’s faced in ages. Amazing. Awesome. Baffling. As someone on Twitter said this morning, imagine John Kerry in August 2004 suddenly deciding he’d had enough of attacking Bush on Iraq and that it was time to make the election a battle over whether the U.S. should have single-payer health care. This is sort of like that.

I would have voted for Ryan for president if he had run so, as you might expect, I like the pick. To me, it’s a “clear conscience” selection: We’re going to own our agenda, let our very best salesman make the pitch on the biggest possible stage, and have the country decide. If they want to send The One back for a second term knowing that the consequences are a near-term fiscal meltdown, hey, that’s democracy. At least, for once, they’ll have made a fully informed choice on this issue; if the electorate prefers the $15 Trillion-Dollar Man’s “vision” on how to solve this existential problem to Paul Ryan’s, I prefer to have a clear statement at the polls to that effect. William Saletan is almost giddy over Ryan’s selection, not because he thinks it’s a sure winner for Democrats but because we’re finally guaranteed a meaningful argument on a matter of deepest consequence by a guy who can make it better than anyone else:

Ryan refutes the Democratic Party’s bogus arguments. He knows that our domestic spending trajectory is unsustainable and that liberals who fail to get it under control are leading their constituents over a cliff, just like in Europe. Eventually, you can’t borrow enough money to make good on your promises, and everyone’s screwed. Ryan understands that the longer we ignore the debt crisis and postpone serious budget cuts—the liberal equivalent of denying global warming—the more painful the reckoning will be. There’s nothing compassionate about that kind of irresponsibility.

Maybe, like me, you were raised in a liberal household. You don’t agree with conservative ideas on social or foreign policy. But this is why God made Republicans: to force a reality check when Democrats overpromise and overspend…

Screw the polls. Republicans will be on the right side of the spending debate. They’ll be on the right side of the substance debate, too. Instead of bickering about Romney’s tax returns and repeating the obvious but unhelpful observation that the unemployment rate sucks, we’ll actually have to debate serious problems and solutions. That’s great for the country.

Allah is worried that by giving the United States a “choice” election, Mr Romney has somehow weakened his campaign. But 2010 wasn’t so long ago, and Republican congressional candidates gave Americans a “choice” election, and the results were that the voters took the right choices. Mr Romney has gone from making this a “vote for me because Obama has failed” election to a “vote for me because Obama has failed, and this is what we will do differently that will work” election.

The conservative message worked well in 2010: Republicans told Americans that they were going to do everything they could to cut spending, and the voters approved their message. The independent voters who were, unfortunately, snookered by the vague “hope” and “change” promises of Barack Obama, appeared to appreciate candidates who told the voters, forthrightly, just what changes they wanted to make.

From Phineas, writing on Sister Toldjah:

We can turn this thing around. Real solutions can be delivered. But, it will take leadership. And the courage to tell you the truth.

That last would be a nice change, wouldn’t it?

Ryan is right to point out that this is not just a battle over economic records, but of ideas — on the nature of the economy, the relation between citizen and government, and the very essence of America, herself. Obama himself has opened the door several times to making this a battle not just about the economy (though his record there is awful enough), but about ideas and ideology, about a choice between being a growing, vigorous United States populated by freeborn citizens, or being a senile, declining “North American Europe,” populated by wards of the state.

The choice is clear, and it’s ours.

LINKS: Twitchy has some fun with liberals who are busy pointing out something shocking — Paul Ryan is a White male!! *gasp!* The horror… Speculation on how Joe Biden is taking the news. Is this the speech that won Paul Ryan the VP nod? The first of the Romney-Ryan ads. It’s a good one. James Pethokoukis thinks Romney-Ryan would complete the Reagan Revolution. Erika Johnsen thinks Ryan is ready for his close up and provides great moments of the congressman taking down President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tax Cheat Geithner. Roger L. Simon calls it “Romney’s Gutsy Choice.”

PS: ST has announced she will be at the Romney-Ryan Charlotte event tomorrow. Expect photo ops with both men.

Donald Douglas had a brief one:

Sarah Palin Congratulates Mitt Romney

For his veep selection, on Facebook:

Congratulations to Mitt Romney on his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate. President Obama has declared that this election is about “two fundamentally different visions” for America. Goodness, he’s got that right. Our country cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama’s fundamentally flawed vision. We must now look to this new team, the Romney/Ryan ticket, to provide an alternate vision of an America that is fiscally responsible, strong, and prosperous – an America that understands and is proud of her exceptional place in the world and will respect those who fight to secure that exceptionalism, which includes keeping our promises to our veterans.

Continue reading.

And from John Hitchcock, both here and on TRUTH BEFORE DISHONOR:

The Ryan selection will energize many of the demoralized TEA Party Commonsense Constitutional Conservatives, who will now be willing to “crawl a mile through broken glass” to vote for Ryan and will man the phones and pound the pavement to GOTV (get out the vote) for the Real Conservative and Real Patriot, Paul Ryan for Vice President. Yes, today, Romney’s chances of winning the Presidency and throwing the Socialist Constitution and Federal Law violator out of the White House has improved greatly.

And:

I said I would not vote for Romney and gave my very specific reasons. Now, I gave evidence for some of my reasons on Patterico’s Pontifications previously (I completely forget which thread) and Daleyrocks provided information that counters my information, causing doubt in my position on that issue. Let me give a couple general reasons for my position (which Daleyrocks helped to waver):

  1. If you cannot get the baby-murdering issue right, what morally imperative issue can you get right?
  2. If you cannot even counterfeit a Bell Curve Tenther position well enough to hoodwink Tenthers — greater amperage of fail with his very recent arm-twisting of Republicans to vote to give the President authority to appoint without Senate approval nearly 200 more Government positions which were previously “nominate and Senate advise and consent” positions — why should any Constitutionalist vote for you?

Paul Ryan could be a reason. There isn’t much better than Paul Ryan. Of my 5 endorsements, 2 are clearly better (Palin and West), 1 is possibly better (Cruz) and the other two are likely equal (Love and Radtke). But a Paul Ryan is a rare find. The 50-karat blue diamond.

If I vote Republican and not Third Party this cycle, it will be just like last time. I will vote for Paul Ryan just like I voted for Sarah Palin. I will not vote for Mitt Romney, just like I did not vote for John McShame.

I knew of Mr Hitchcock’s disdain of Governor Romney; that the selection of Representative Ryan could influence him to change his mind bodes well for a lot of other I’ll-hold-my-nose-and-vote-for-Romney conservatives out there, the ones who really, really despised what President Obama and his policies have done to this country, but who were only going to vote for Mr Romney because he wasn’t Barack Obama; this is the kind of energy the Romney campaign needs now, this is the kind of energy that the 2010 TEA Party campaigns had that delivered victory. And as Karen pointed out, in her article linked above, the selection of Paul Ryan led to a surge of contributions to the Romney-Ryan campaign:

Sister Toldjah is heading for the Romney-Ryan campaign event in Charlotte, and the highways are jammed, and so is the event:


Share photos on twitter with Twitpic That’s Sis’ twitpic of the crowd on the left; click to embiggen. Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) carried North Carolina by the barest of margins in 2008; it looks like the Ryan selection is energizing the Tarheels, and Sis’ home state will be solidly red1 this November!

Foxfier was “DELIGHTED” to hear the news of Mr Ryan’s selection. Hube, on the other hand, was not:

It’s Paul Ryan

I admit I am not exactly thrilled by this choice. Ryan is smart as a whip, no doubt. But where is the charisma factor? I don’t see it. Romney, who’s not exactly exciting himself, needed someone, well, who is. Paul Ryan is not that guy. Personally, I was a Marco Rubio fan.

Perhaps Romney was afraid of the “Palin Factor” — that “going outside the box” would have the same results that John McCain ended up with. I dunno. At any rate, Pollster Scott Rasmussen tweets: “Romney must feel he’s weathered the Obama attacks pretty well if he’s willing to go with Ryan.”

Here’s why:

Earlier polling found that 39% of all voters had a favorable opinion of Ryan, while 25% offered a negative review. Thirty-five percent (35%) express no opinion of Ryan. The congressman is relatively unknown to the nation at large. Only a third of voters have a strong opinion in either direction.

Well, let’s see what happens!

Yeah, I guess that we will.

This election isn’t in the bag for anyone yet, and Mr Romney didn’t make a “safe” choice. But he’s the challenger, and the underdog, and safe choices aren’t always winning choices. The Republicans need to come out fighting, and with Paul Ryan they have a chance to actually fight for this election.
____________________________________

  1. I remember when red was the color associated with the Communists; how the heck did red get to be the color used on the election maps for Republicans?

70 Comments

  1. I’m happy with the Ryan pick, but I already liked Romney and would have voted for him regardless. I simply have no patience for third party supporters (might as well vote for Obama) and purists who complain about the not-perfect candidate. We will always have disagreements about policy issues, but, as Ronald Reagan said, a person who agrees with me on 80% of issues is not my enemy.

    The Ryan pick assures that the election will have to be about issues of fiscal sanity and future security. I’m not convinced Americans who want everything but the bill (I include third party cop-outs in this group)will be willing to accept the castor oil of this discussion (see: Walter Mondale, 1986). Nevertheless, it is nice to see some attempt to treat voters as grown-ups who care more about the future rather than children who just want ice cream now.

  2. About your footnote, Republicans were blue and Democrats were red for most of my life. And yes, red is Socialist, just like Obama who was a registered Socialist while living and “community organizing” in Chicago. But you can thank MSNBC, that radical Lefitst piece of crap of a network that almost nobody watches, for changing things around.

    Just like redefining “gay”, “queer”, and all manner of words Perry of Lewes Delaware has failingly attempted to redefine, MSNBC redefined the color scheme to aid Democrats, and the rest of the lamestream media, already in the bag at a neraly 90 percent clip, jumped at the chance to flip the colors. Google “the hunt for blue October” for more information.

  3. Debbie Wassername-Schultz ( why does her hair always look dirty?) was out bright and early this morning spreading the newest lies and obfuscations about Ryan’s Medicare ideas. So let me borrow from Guy Benson.

    (1) The Republican reform plan totally exempts anyone over the age of 55 from any changes. When President Obama promised Americans “if you like your plan, you can keep it” to push Obamacare, he didn’t tell the truth. The Ryan plan explicitly, in black and white, protects current and soon-to-be seniors. No changes.

    (2) The Democrats’ non-plan does the opposite. It has already slashed more than half-a-trillion dollars (Update: $741 Billion, according to the latest CBO score) from Medicare to fund Obamacare, and it has established an unaccountable and extremely powerful bureaucratic board to ration care in order to keep costs down. To repeat, current seniors have already seen their Medicare cut by President Obama, not Republicans.

    (3) Medicare’s own accountants have calculated that Medicare will be insolvent within 12 years. As Democrats claim that Romney and Ryan want to “kill Medicare” or “end Medicare as we know it,” they fail to mention that the calendar and basic arithmetic will do that in the face of inaction. Doing nothing is President Obama’s plan because it tempts voters with the illusion that everything is going to be just fine, and that he’s protecting them from “draconian cuts.” He hopes this charade will get him through the election cycle. But reality is gaining on us. Medicare “as we know it” will be obliterated for generations to come unless we start making changes for the future, while shielding people currently at or near retirement from any switch. Between items two and three on this list, the truth is revealed: Democrats’ plans cut Medicare, and Democrats’ calculated inaction will result in its ultimate demise. The Republican plan is an urgently necessary move to save the program.

    (4) After his plan was criticized for being too partisan in the first “Path to Prosperity” budget, Paul Ryan adjusted his reforms in the FY 2013 version. He updated his Medicare reform to embrace a bipartsian solution he co-crafted with progressive Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), which maintains the original “premium support” model, but includes traditional Medicare as an option for future seniors. Again, the Medicare reform plan for future seniors is bipartisan, and co-authored by a committed liberal who understands that the clock is running out to save the program. The updated version’s provisions are also means-tested, meaning they entail more federal assistance to poorer and sicker future seniors than richer and healthier ones.

    (5) The Romney/Ryan plan does not impose “draconian and radical cuts.” In fact, the Republican budget increases spending. Every year. It simply slows the rate of increase. The most recent House-passed budget increases spending from $3.53 Trillion to $4.88 Trillion within the next ten years. This does, however, spend trillions less than President Obama’s unanimously-defeated budgets envisioned. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re broke, and it’s getting worse.

    Perhaps Debbie, Hussein, Reid and the rest of the demonic, diabolical Dems can scare a few elderly Americans who don’t think and just buy into The Big Lie ( you know who you are ), but the rest of us are looking for responsable answers, not hype, drama and innuendo. We’ve seen what these leftist do when they took an economy poised for recovery in 2009 and created a great recession. We’ve seen how they pay off their lackys in unions and on Wall Street ( not ONE prosecution let alone conviction of the Wall Street thieves ), how they take over “favored” industries and do their best to destroy those “non-favored”.

    The choice has never been more clear. If you want to have to ask a bur-O-crat to buy a light bulb, get an “approved” new car, how much to flush your toilet, how many ounces of Coke you’re allowed, and whether or not you can see a doctor then by all means vote Hussien.

    NO candidate is perfect (try telling that to a Hussein supporter ), and no Plan is perfect either. But we’ve seen what these fools are all about and even by their OWN STANDARD they are a big FAIL. We need to throw these political hacks out and get some real American Statesmen in office who care more about the future of our country then they care about getting their own worthless asses re-elected.

  4. Debbie whatshername schmuck is a known liar, the daughter of two criminals. Whatever she says, chances are the exact opposite is true.

    That reminds me of some blame fool who was raised by a man who got disbarred. Was it for being a criminal or merely for being completely unethical? I don’t know, but his son learned a lot from him. His son is totally unethical and totally dishonest.

    The apple very rarely falls outside the drip-edge of the apple tree. And in these two cases, the apple landed up against the trunk.

  5. And yet Mr. Hitchcock, people like these demand, demand I tell you, to see other peoples tax returns! Now I ask you: would you reveal YOUR tax returns to persons of such ill repute? Only if you’re just dying to spend the next five years and five hundred grand defending what the IRS has already accepted as valid.

  6. Hitch, the accusations against Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s parents may be the result of misidentification. The DNC Congresswoman is Jewish and was born in Queens, NY., while the Wasserman-Rubin in trouble with the law is Catholic and was born in Cuba.

    The confusion will be sorted out quickly. Till then, it’s best to wait for the next few cards to turn face up.

    The last thing I want to see is the free gift of a false accusation for Wasserman-Schultz to use to cover up her outrageous lies.

  7. Then today in a FoxNews interview Debbie said this:

    Host: Should the Democrats be releasing an ad that accuses a presidential candidate of being responsible, through inference, of being responsible for a woman’s death?

    DWS: First of all, that’s a Priorities USA ad.

    Host: I understand…

    DWS: It’s a priorities USA Super PAC ad…

    Host: Correct

    DWS: … and we have nothing to do with it.

    Host: Do you deny that they’re Democrats?

    DWS: I have no idea of the political affiliation of the folks associated with that Super PAC.

    Host: So, Bill Burton, who used to work in the White House, who worked for the Obama campaign in 2008? Not a Democrat?

    DWS: That is a Super PAC ad, not affiliated with the party or the campaign.

    She sat there on national TV and claimed she had no clue about the party affiliation of Bill Burton the former White House Deputy Press Secretary.

    This ass is the gift that keeps on giving from the Democrat Party. What a group for retrobate liars.

  8. One has to question why anyone would give himself the tag “Allahpundit – he must be another right-wing absolutist, thinking of himself as a God-like spokesman of irrefutable absolutisms. That said, I find Allahpundit’s honest statements of his beliefs refreshing and most interesting, because they are so revealing of the Tea/Repub extremism we middle and poor Americans face in the next election.

    “Has there ever been a campaign that went, literally overnight, from being about nothing to leaping neck-deep into the most treacherous, dangerous issue in American politics? Until last night, I thought Romney was running for president because he wanted to be president, full stop. Everything about him suggested personal ambition over vision — the endless flip-flops, the extreme caution on the trail, the negative-ad carpet-bombing of Gingrich and Santorum in the primaries.”

    Thank you Allahpundit! This is exactly what I have been saying about Romney on here for many weeks, and which the wingers on here have avoided saying or agreeing, in spite of the evidence presented.

    “To me, it’s a “clear conscience” selection: We’re going to own our agenda, let our very best salesman make the pitch on the biggest possible stage, and have the country decide.”

    For Paul Ryan, a likeable enough guy, and civil (for a change), to be a good “salesman”, he must rid himself of his fatal flaw: He is a salesman without a conscience!!!

    Paul Ryan obviously has no concept of the negative impact that his carefully calculated solutions will have on most Americans, except to bolster the 1%, as if we haven’t tried this supply side trickle down economics before and failed, as if Americans have to be severely punished for the sins of the one percenters on Wall Street and a dysfunctional Congress, which has adamantly refused to generate solutions to our problems because of a desire to unseat a black man whom they have hated from day one of his Presidency!

    “At least, for once, they’ll [the electorate] have made a fully informed choice on this issue; if the electorate prefers the $15 Trillion-Dollar Man’s “vision” on how to solve this existential problem to Paul Ryan’s, I prefer to have a clear statement at the polls to that effect.”

    Exactly right, Allahpundit, which is why my initial reaction was to “bring it on”. This is exactly the debate we need to have!

    PS: I have to laugh again at Allahpundit’s allusion to this “15 Trillion dollar man” Obama, because like all wingers, Allahpundit ignores the fact that Bush doubled the debt to 10 trillian, whereas Obama increased it by half again more, fighting the Great Recession he inherited from Bush.

  9. For us seniors who want to know what Obamacre really looks like, all we have to do is read the news in the UK.

    It started out with headlines like this Four patients die thirsty or starving EVERY DAY on our hospital wards show damning new statistics and then a Doctor came forward with the explaination. Top doctor’s chilling claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year
    * Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
    * Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
    * Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’

    A different slant on the subject Is the Liverpool Care Pathway badly maligned? The article ends with “… I heard that in the near future local councils will have to ditch all their other commitments (apart from emptying the bins), such as the maintenance of local roads and providing public libraries, in order to pay for the end of life care of their elderly local residents. It strikes me that wheeling out the LCP alongside the wheelie bins will look like an increasingly attractive option to our health and social services. This is my opinion rather than fact, obviously.” The comments at the end of the article are quite telling.

    Even worse a grassroots organization points out the the Liverpool Care Pathway, (LCP) a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country, is not just used on the elderly but also on the disabled and on children. So it seems the starvation was not just poor management but actually PLANNED!

    Perhaps the worse part of this is it is right in line with the thinking of Fabian Society founder George Bernard Shaw. (Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was chairman of the Fabian Society BTW)

    Westminsters favourite brand of Politician- Fabians- THE PLACE STINKS WITH THEM!

    The Real George Bernard Shaw –…..
    What I want to show you here is the depraved mind of a ‘man’ who thought and stated quite clearly what he thought of the ordinary person on the street far removed from his elitist circle…

    We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

    A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

    These are not isolated statements made at some point in his life. These statements and many others were made over decades consistently and repetitively.

  10. Wagonwheel says:
    August 13, 2012 at 09:51 (Edit)

    One has to question why anyone would give himself the tag “Allahpundit – he must be another right-wing absolutist, thinking of himself as a God-like spokesman of irrefutable absolutisms.

    Some moron who chose to call himself Wagonwheel (what’s that decision? You think the world revolves around you?) decides to lambaste someone who chose the moniker Allahpundit. Can it get any more stupider coming from the extreme radical irrational Leftist Perry of Lose Delaware? Perry has to give a full-on hate-filled attack on an atheist who is known as a beta-male squish New York City Republican because Perry cannot avoid attacking the messenger every time Perry’s thong gets wedged a little too tight.

    And George W Bush, who was no Conservative, added less than 5 trillion dollars to the debt in 8 years, with Democrats ruling the Senate for nearly 4 of those 8 years and ruling the House for the final 2 and most deficit-ridden of those 8 years. But Obama has added more than 5 trillion dollars to the debt in less than 4 years, far surpassing anything Bush ever dreampt of compromising with the Democrats to run up.

    But Perry has his Lie-Filled Leftist talking points he saw somewhere else that he has to push here, to Sheol with the truth. He’s never let the truth get in his way before; why let it get in the way now? Of course, being the son of a man who apparently was either a criminal or so unethical that he lost his license to practice Law, it comes naturally to Perry. The apple doesn’t rot far from the tree.

  11. “…. as if Americans have to be severely punished for the sins of the one percenters on Wall Street and a dysfunctional Congress,….”

    Are you referring to the guys who the Hussein administration refuses to prosecute because Hussein is in bed with them band they “bundle” for him? And are you referring to the Democrat Senate which refusses to pass a bill or even a budget?

    “….which has adamantly refused to generate solutions to our problems because of a desire to unseat a black man whom they have hated from day one of his Presidency!”

    My God you’re a racist! The worst ever. Everything with you is race. Couldn’t be we don’t like him because he’s a freekin marxist? The very reason you do like him. He could be a fuckin’ Martian as far as I’m concerned as long as he wasn’t a damn commie!

    You really oughta move to North Korea, you’d get along fine there. My wife, a brand new American citizen, is better at it than you are. BTW, she’s not white so there goes your racist comments. Oh, and she will be voting…..

    Romney/Ryan!

    ( unless the Democrats suppress her vote with a dead dog or illegal alien! )

  12. “…. as if we haven’t tried this supply side trickle down economics before and failed,….”

    Really? So things are better now under Hussein than they were under Reagan? What universe are you living in? BTW, have you ever heard “If you build it they will come”? That’s supply side, you maroon! Build the business and people will come. They won’t come to an empty lot which is exactly what your economic model is…empty.

  13. John Hitchcock, it is absolutely true that Bush near doubled our national debt, and Obama increased it only half as much. That way of stating it puts the proper perspective on the comparison, in my view.

    Moreover, President Obama not only inherited a Great Recession with massive job losses and shrinking GDP, he also inherited two wars off-budget, Medicare Part D off-budget, and two Bush tax cuts favoring the rich and not paid for. That’s the political party and ideology you huckster, John.

    Instead of being accountable for that mess, you now want to blame the recipient of said mess, and your party in almost four years lifted not one finger to help address the solutions, in fact, your party interfered with the workings of government as completely as you could, just so you could get/grab power back.

    Now we have Republican candidates for President and VP, who wish to punish the American middle and poor for the negligence of their own party to act for almost four years. And worse, you folks think you have earned the right to “put us back on track”, when you derailed us to begin with. And even worse yet, you wish to restore the same ‘favor the wealthy’ and deregulation ideology which has given free rein to both kill jobs and ship jobs overseas, with your trickle-down economics and your laissez-faire practices.

    Every word of the above is factual, John, so for you to attempt to call this a lie is you telling the lie. But that’s been your mantra for years, so no surprise.

    Regarding my father, you are lying about that as well. My father was not disbarred, and he was not unethical. I’ve gone through this once, and will not repeat it for you!

    Tell us about your father, John. Maybe that will help us to understand the roots of your inability to distinguish the truth from the untruth. You are supposedly a grown man now!

  14. Oh, Wagonwheel. You’ll be happy to know this past weekend we had a voter registration drive at the Club. Saturday and Sunday from 11am till 6pm. Guess what? 71 Republicans, 3 independants and 2 Democrats ( I term the Democrats “dependants” ).

    And yes, today Roy turned in ALL the registrations, we’re not cheats.

    Hey, is it legal to adopt Democrats so you can deduct them on your taxes? I figure if they have their hand in my pocket they should be deductable.

  15. “Moreover, President Obama not only inherited a Great Recession with massive job losses and shrinking GDP”

    NO! He did not inherit a great recession, he created it with failure after failure. Are you that dumb? Or just that willfully blind?

    “Every word of the above is factual, John,”

    No, every word you printed is you fuckin’ opinion and your fuckin’ spin. Not a fact in the entire paragraph you liar.

  16. “Really? So things are better now under Hussein than they were under Reagan? What universe are you living in? BTW, have you ever heard “If you build it they will come”? That’s supply side, you maroon! Build the business and people will come. They won’t come to an empty lot which is exactly what your economic model is…empty.”

    Well I was referring to Bush supply side, Hoagie, which you failed to defend, for obvious reasons: It failed.

    And since you have now brought up Reagan, his supply side failed as well, when you look at it from today’s vantage point. Reagan’s fiscal policies started the decline of the American middle class, and initiated the movement of our wealth from the middle to what has turned out what we now call the 1%. Reagan even overdid the tax cuts, causing the national debt to skyrocket, to which he had to retreat and raise taxes, seven times before the end of his second term. Did you know that, Hoagie?

    But you conveniently ignore these facts about the negative impact of supply side on our economy, as GW Bush and his Repubs did as well.

    Yet Romney/Ryan are calling for us to try this again, for the third time! They want to give the wealthy another tax cut with the top bracket of 25%, down from 39.5%, eliminate taxes on dividends, interest, and capital gains, and deregulate all over again, at a time when 1% of our population owns 40% of our wealth.

    Under the Romney/Ryan Plan, Mitt Romney’s tax burden would be reduced from 13.9% to 0.82%. I’m sure you are fine with all this, Hoagie, correct?

    The American dream is already in great trouble due to Republican supply-side tax policy, and deregulation policies, and now Romney/Ryan are saying that they will double down, or should I say triple down?

    This is pure political insanity, Hoagie, regarding the American middle and poor. So next time you respond, you need to think of some more stronger names to call me than maroon (Did you mean moron?), because calling me names is the only viable response you have, the rest of it being so goddamn weak!

  17. “NO! He did not inherit a great recession, he created it with failure after failure. Are you that dumb? Or just that willfully blind? “

    You have just demonstrated, Hoagie, that you have no credibility whatsoever, and can no longer be taken seriously, unless you somehow reform yourself!

  18. “No, every word you printed is you fuckin’ opinion and your fuckin’ spin. Not a fact in the entire paragraph you liar.”

    Really impressive, Hoagie!

    There is no debating or even discussing with a person like you. One thing you cannot do, Hoagie, which undoubtedly drives you up the wall, is shut me up. I’m sure you would, if you could, because that is the way cowards behave; but you cannot! So you might as well exert a little of that discipline, and ignore me, starting now!

  19. Politics aside for a second, I was really impressed with the performance and attitude of our athletes in the London Olympics Games, a credit to our nation in many ways. And kudos to the Brits for putting on an extraordinary show, and to our NBC for the coverage and commentary. Good show!!!

  20. Fucknut who demanded on multiple occasions over the past 3 years plus that the Editor shut me up, sez:

    One thing you cannot do, Hoagie, which undoubtedly drives you up the wall, is shut me up. I’m sure you would, if you could, because that is the way cowards behave; but you cannot!

    Fucknut, like all Socialists and radical Leftists — and he is one — projects his own asinine bullshit onto his mortal enemies: the True Patriots of the US.

  21. And Perry, don’t you dare try to claim you didn’t try to shut me up because every regular here knows you did try just that, and on a vast number of occasions, because you didn’t like what I had to say.

    By your own definition, Perry, you are the most cowardly on this site, bar none.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hypocritical, dishonorable, dishonest, radical Socialist ideologue, Perry of Lose Delaware.

  22. “Regarding my father, you are lying about that as well. My father was not disbarred, …”

    If what you say is accurate, John has apparently mistaken your father for your grandfather, if he is referring to what you had yourself written. Hardly a lie.

    It was your grandfather who you said was was engaged in shady land deals, was disbarred, and who then abandoned his family, wasn’t it?

    ” and he was not unethical. “

    Whether your father was unethical or not, if you were telling the truth (during your “odious comparison” attack on Romney) he could not have been disbarred since he thrice failed to pass the bar.

    “I’ve gone through this once, and will not repeat it for you!”

    That you wouldn’t want to, is only natural Perry. Since, what you had originally intended as an attack on Romney for being out of touch as a result of having a grandfather who overcame adversity and loss, and a father who determinedly rose to success, made it look as though there were some “genetic thang” in your own family that impelled them toward either criminality or liberalism.

    “Tell us about your father, John. Maybe that will help us to understand the roots of your inability to distinguish the truth from the untruth. You are supposedly a grown man now!”

    Now, now … You are 77 or so years old Perry, and you brought up your father and grandfather as an excuse for needing the state support you received.

    What would John’s rationale be for bringing up his father? And given your sneering remarks about being a grown man … why did you think that you could get away with the same?

    Many people have had tough childhoods, and fathers who were less than perfect, quite bad, or absent altogether.

    Your tale of inter-generational male woe, is not the kind of thing one usually reads about though, especially when it is couched as an attack as yours was, on a political figure.

    There are for example, plenty of families wherein the male lines seem susceptible to alcoholism. And although you will sometimes read about the struggles of the family or the man in particular to deal with his addiction to self-destructive behavior, one seldom reads about it framed as an indictment of another man from a family which does not have the same heritable disorders.

    But then not everyone is a “progressive”.

  23. Perry must be senile. Calling out Hoagie on a credibility issue is the surest way Perry could possibly expose his own hypocrisy short of changing his name to Ellsworth Toohey.

    Hoagie has the courage, compassion, integrity, experience, and record of achievement which puts him so far out in front of a mean-spirited, two-faced, self-loathing, dumbass liar like Perry that my only reaction to his ridiculous accusations is sadness and head-shaking bemusement.

  24. “And Perry, don’t you dare try to claim you didn’t try to shut me up because every regular here knows you did try just that, and on a vast number of occasions, because you didn’t like what I had to say.”

    John, now you are imagining things. I said nothing in this thread about shutting you up. But come to think of it, you should work on shutting yourself up, because you exude blatant hatred in most of your responses to me, instead of focusing on the issues at hand, hardly what one would expect from one who claims a fundamentalist belief in the teachings of Christ, in which case you continue to be a simply horrible witness. Who could possibly be interested in looking into your religion given the exhibit you produce on this blog?

    I also make note of the fact that our Editor has shut you up a number of times on here, not enough though, based on your continuous stream of personal attacks on me, often without even making reference to what I said which set you off. Our Editor sets the example most of the time, but you cannot discipline yourself to follow his example. Instead, you continuously contaminate this blog with your behavior.

    Now some may claim the same of me due to my political views, which seem extreme when viewed from your perspective. That’s to be expected from both sides. Isn’t this what this blog is supposed to be all about, a venue for airing our political views?

  25. “Perry must be senile. Calling out Hoagie on a credibility issue is the surest way Perry could possibly expose his own hypocrisy short of changing his name to Ellsworth Toohey.

    Hoagie has the courage, compassion, integrity, experience, and record of achievement which puts him so far out in front of a mean-spirited, two-faced, self-loathing, dumbass liar like Perry that my only reaction to his ridiculous accusations is sadness and head-shaking bemusement.”

    Well of course, ropelight, since the two of you are members of the same tribe. Your credibility is as suspect as Hoagies is, when you make the statement quoted, all personal attacks with no reference, so what’s the use of it, other than your making another personal attack.

    I’m used to this from you, ropelight, so I could care less, though I reserve the right to point it out from time to time. If you had an ounce of credibility and character, you would call out others of your tribe when they err in this manner. But you don’t!

  26. Wagonwheel says:
    August 13, 2012 at 14:18

    “And Perry, don’t you dare try to claim you didn’t try to shut me up because every regular here knows you did try just that, and on a vast number of occasions, because you didn’t like what I had to say.”

    John, now you are imagining things. I said nothing in this thread about shutting you up.

    And some idiot thought he could get away with that absolute dishonesty. Since I never said anything about “this thread”, Perry, you’re being multiple grades of absolutely dishonest. You have, many times, tried to shut me up through the force of power by appealing to the blog owner to do that very thing and by telling me to that very thing. On multiple occasions. Do you want me to provide a Google search of “Perry” “shut up” “be quiet”? And, by you very own words, that means you’re a coward and weak. But since we all knew you were already highly dishonest and highly cowardly, I haven’t said anything we didn’t all already know.

    So quit with your lies and personal hatred of everything and everyone Patriotic. And quit with your Socialist agenda, that nobody will ever buy if you tried to sell it without being dishonest.

  27. I also make note of the fact that our Editor has shut you up a number of times on here

    Give exact references to three such times. I double-dog dare you, liar. In fact, the Editor said if it comes down to a tie-breaker, I win every time and you lose every time. So, instead of lying about history, learn from history, you boob.

  28. DNW, you are correct in what you said on here about my grandfather. Your attention to detail is admirable; the problem I have with you is your political ideology; of mine I know you would say the same. But that’s life as we know it. If I used the word “disbarred” with regard to my father, you have that right as well, as he never passed the bar exam. It was my grandfather who was disbarred. But that is all history, most of which occurred prior to my birth.

    “Now, now … You are 77 or so years old Perry, and you brought up your father and grandfather as an excuse for needing the state support you received.”

    I’m trying to think of what I said which led you to this erroneous conclusion. As poor as we were, we never received state support.

    “That you wouldn’t want to, is only natural Perry. Since, what you had originally intended as an attack on Romney for being out of touch as a result of having a grandfather who overcame adversity and loss, and a father who determinedly rose to success, made it look as though there were some “genetic thang” in your own family that impelled them toward either criminality or liberalism.”

    Neither! You’re beginning to make assumptions which are leading you astray. In fact, I’ve begun to work again on a family narrative, instigated recently by a letter from a forth cousin on the paternal side of my family, from Colorado, who was doing her family tree and came up with my name. The two of us are connected to a James H McCarty, (1825-1858), a Philadelphia business man. Up to now, I have traced my maternal side four generations back, also a Philadelphia family named Edwards. But this is of no interest to anyone here.

    “What would John’s rationale be for bringing up his father? And given your sneering remarks about being a grown man … why did you think that you could get away with the same?”

    John was trying to impugn me by a derogatory statement about my father, which I communicated to him by asking about his father.

    “Your tale of inter-generational male woe, is not the kind of thing one usually reads about though, especially when it is couched as an attack as yours was, on a political figure.

    There are for example, plenty of families wherein the male lines seem susceptible to alcoholism. And although you will sometimes read about the struggles of the family or the man in particular to deal with his addiction to self-destructive behavior, one seldom reads about it framed as an indictment of another man from a family which does not have the same heritable disorders.

    But then not everyone is a “progressive”.”

    The point was, basically, that Mitt Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. No harm meant here, just stated as a fact, and a contrast to my paternal side an probably 99% if the rest of our citizens. However, for whatever reason, it is apparent that Romney has some difficult in connecting with people in terms of understanding what middle American life is all about, not to mention those in poverty. I don’t blame the man Romney, I’m just stating the nature of the man as he appears to me over the tube.

    The political significance of this man Romney is that this aloofness of his should be of some concern to those who support him. Isn’t his adoption of Paul Ryan as his VP some evidence of this, that he should choose a person who can connect better than he can? Romney’s new problem is, that Paul Ryan does not appear to be connected either, in terms of the impacts of his version of austerity on the young, the coming elderly, the middle class, the poor, women, and minorities.

    My claim is that Romney/Ryan have just assured the loss of the upcoming election. It remains to be seen how much collateral damage their candidacy and ideology will do to other Republican office seekers.

  29. “And Perry, don’t you dare try to claim you didn’t try to shut me up because every regular here knows you did try just that, and on a vast number of occasions, because you didn’t like what I had to say.”

    John, now you are imagining things. I said nothing in this thread about shutting you up.

    Right, and you did not show where I said this “in this thread”, or anywhere for that matter. It is true, I have complained about your personal attacks at me a few times, but not in this thread, which was the implication of your original statement. Our Editor has claimed a number of times that he wanted to clean up his blog, but those claims have faded into the dusk, again!

    You need a nap, John, because you are fast losing it right now!

  30. Perry, tribe has nothing to do with my appreciation of Hoagie’s qualities, they exist outside of group affiliations, and attach only to Hoagie individually and specifically.

    Nor do my condemnations of your shortcomings rely on your membership in any particular group. I’m calling you mean-spirited, two-faced, self-loathing, (and a) dumbass liar… That’s why I specifically identified you by name: …like Perry.

    Too often group identity is your point of reference even when the debate focuses on individual positions or characteristics, and it’s your inability to see beyond group affiliation which is one of the individual characteristics that identifies you as a bigot.

  31. Democrat Erskine Bowles of the Bowles-Simpson Budget Compromise, created by Obama for political gamesmanship and not for honest attempts to fix anything, and then absolutely and resoundingly rejected by Obama, heaped high praise on Paul Ryan and the Ryan Budget.

    And Perry showed his Pelosi-like prognostication abilities in 2010, when Perry claimed Democrats would do well. How’s that historic devastation of Democrat politicians, Perry? 0ver 700 seats previously held by Democrats became Republican seats on a single night.

  32. Perry, you falsely claimed someone here was trying to shut you up.
    You then claimed that those who try to shut people up are cowards.
    I then pointed out that you have, on quite numerous occasions, tried to shut me up.
    Thus, proving by your own definition that you are, indeed, a coward.

    I used your own definition and declaration, combined with your long record of trying to shut people up, to prove you’re a coward.

  33. Erskine Bowles, a Democrat and former Presidential advisor, said Ryan’s plan was honest, sincere, and reasonable, while noting Obama’s plan was voted down in the Democrat-held Senate 97-0. And even Ezra Klein, that lunchbox mafioso JournoList member, said Erskine Bowles would be Obama’s next Treasury Secretary, replacing Tax Cheat Tim Geithner.

    Seems Perry remains far to the left of even the 20 percent self-declared Liberals in the plurality-Conservative nation, beyond that of Democrat Budgetary powerhouse Erskine Bowles.

  34. And, Perry, you can lie about what I implied on this thread all you want. Unlike you, people can and do actually read what was said, so they are faced with what I said and your lies about what I said. And it is very obvious that you lied about what I said on this thread, on this thread.

  35. ” Wagonwheel says:
    August 13, 2012 at 14:18

    “And Perry, don’t you dare try to claim you didn’t try to shut me up because every regular here knows you did try just that, and on a vast number of occasions, because you didn’t like what I had to say.”

    John, now you are imagining things. I said nothing in this thread about shutting you up.”

    Nah, it’s all political, otherwise you would be more neutral with your personal attacks. You fool noone, ropelight. But your tribe will support you to the end, so don’t worry!

  36. The American dream is already in great trouble due to Republican supply-side tax policy, and deregulation policies, and now Romney/Ryan are saying that they will double down, or should I say triple down?

    No, the American Dream is in trouble because Obama believes “You Didn’t Build That!”

  37. Ropelight and John, you are fixated on meaningless attacks. Too bad you don’t see how you come over to folks who have come to understand that right wing extremism is an aberration based on irrational impulses and prejudices. Why cannot we just disagree, and leave it at that once the arguments have been hashed out?

  38. Because, Perry, you are an aberrant liar, and it’s your Socialist ilk that is set to destroy history’s greatest and wealthiest and freest nation. The Founders and the Framers are rolling over in their graves due to the devastation your ilk is doing to this nation. And your lies about everyone to the right of Pol Pot will not stand.

  39. Wagonwheel says:
    August 13, 2012 at 16:20

    Ropelight and John, you are fixated on meaningless attacks. Too bad you don’t see how you come over to folks who have come to understand that right wing extremism is an aberration based on irrational impulses and prejudices. “

    Well, you think placing the highest political value on freedom and self-direction is an irrational impulse anyway; while believing that everyone becoming a slave to your dysfunction in the name of a delusional “brotherhood”, is somehow rational.

    The cost of giving into you, is a loss of freedom, for nothing in return. Why shouldn’t they react with contempt?

  40. I understand very well how you set me up, DNW, every time, but my first instinct is to take you seriously every time; then this.

    “Well, you think placing the highest political value on freedom and self-direction is an irrational impulse anyway; while believing that everyone becoming a slave to your dysfunction in the name of a delusional “brotherhood”, is somehow rational.

    The cost of giving into you, is a loss of freedom, for nothing in return. Why shouldn’t they react with contempt?”

    Freedom, like everything else, has limits, because each situation needs to be examined on its merits. I understand how this appears as anathema to an absolutist like yourself, which is probably a root cause of most wars.

    I feel like I am lecturing a first grader about fair play in the school yard. You are behaving like a first grader who wants it his way all the time.

    The idea of brotherhood happens to have a New Testament foundation, DNW, so you have just taken the position of a phoney, one who mouths certain platitudes because they sound good, while simultaneously covering up your internal truth, which is unbridled arrogance.

    You are who you are, which is impossible to hide from the perspicacious, if you talk/write enough, which you have on here.

    Moreover, it always has to be something in return. Why shouldn’t you be held in contempt by those who can see through your mask?

  41. “No, the American Dream is in trouble because Obama believes “You Didn’t Build That!””

    You continue to take that statement out of context, Eric, which I provided for you.

    But that’s what your breed does, mechanically!

  42. “Here’s a hint, liar Perry: Is this particular thread over 3 years old? No? Then you lied about what I implied. Go ahead, scroll up. I double-dog dare you. Liar.”

    Oh Johnny dear, you are still misbehaving. Come in from the school yard and sit on the stool facing the corner, until you stop and apologize for what you are doing.

  43. WW demonstrates liberal math:

    it is absolutely true that Bush near doubled our national debt, and Obama increased it only half as much. That way of stating it puts the proper perspective on the comparison, in my view.

    While I know what you are trying to say, your poor grammar makes the sentence false; to state that “Obama increased it only half as much” is a comparison on dollar amounts, not on percentage of the national debt. To have made your statement properly, you would have to have said, “it is absolutely true that Bush near doubled our national debt, and Obama increased the debt only by half.”

    That aside, more has been added to the national debt in the 3½ years that Barack Hussein Obama has been President than during the eight years George Bush was in office. Between January 20, 2009 and August 10, 2012, the national debt has increased by $5.288 trillion. At that point, Mr Obama had been President for 1,318 long, miserable days. If President Obama is re-elected and continues the policies he has saddled our country with so far, the national debt will more than double under his term, adding $11.724 trillion.

    Under President Bush, the national debt increased from $5.728 trillion to $10.727 trillion, an increase of $4.899 trillion, or 85.54%, not quite doubling; if President Obama is re-elected and maintains his current policies, our national debt will have more than doubled, rising 109.29%. Even if President Obama is defeated, the national debt has already increased more in his less-than-one term than it did during both of George Bush’s terms.

    And what did Barack Obama say about the debt added under President Bush? According to the then-junior Senator from Illinois, it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for President Bush to have increased the national debt by $4 trillion, “all by his lonesome,” in eight years. One wonders what the Senator from Illinois would have said had John McCain won the election, and Mr McCain increased the national debt by over $5 trillion in less than four years.

    OK, that’s a lie; no one wonders that at all; we all know what he’d say, and we all know what Wagonwheel would say, and we all know what the Democrats would say about a Republican President who presided over an unemployment rate stuck well over 8% for his entire term, about a Republican President who presided over a recession for four years, about a Republican President who bowed to foreign kings, who muddled his way in diplomacy so badly that the Israelis didn’t trust him, and about a Republican President who saw food stamp use skyrocket to 45 million.

  44. ‘There is no debating or even discussing with a person like you. One thing you cannot do, Hoagie, which undoubtedly drives you up the wall, is shut me up. I’m sure you would, if you could, because that is the way cowards behave; but you cannot! So you might as well exert a little of that discipline, and ignore me, starting now!”

    No darling, I don’t want to “shut” you up. I want you to keep talkin’, and talkin’ loud and long. The ONE thing I want is clowns like you to keep talkin’ until your own people see the fact you’re full of shit.

    You, Hussein, Rein, Debbie Wasswername-Shitz …. all of you fools!!!!!!!

    Enough exclamation points?

  45. Did you actually say “Freedom, like everything else, has limits’?

    Tell me Wagonwheel, what are the limits of Freedom. Common’ you ass, tell me where the end of freedom is and where the begiging of……..WHAT is.

    Freedom has NO limits. Freedom is what YOU hate. I will always be free.

    Romney/Ryan!

    BTW, Fuck Hussein.

  46. Ah, I see the mentally impaired Passive-Aggressive Perry has utilized just about every one of his usual tricks in this thread … and most definitely living up to his passive-aggressive nature: Ripping people one minute, then dishonestly asking “Can’t we just agree to disagree?” As if that was EVER enough for him. What a completely dishonest and immoral asshole.

    Just be gentle when you’re beating your wife today, PAP.

  47. Wagonwheel says:
    August 13, 2012 at 17:37

    I understand very well how you set me up, DNW, every time …”

    I don’t set you up. You set yourself up by hypocritically mouthing Christian platitudes as part of your camouflage.

    You are not a critical thinker. You are not a rigorous reasoner. You are not well informed as to the foundations and origins of the very principles which you deploy in order to stake your interpersonal claims.

    With you its all just emotion and bankrupt rhetoric in the service of an unexamined appetite … your own.

    What you do have, and all you do have, is a routine you go through with the same mindless habituation as that of a ruffed grouse drumming on a log. By making Christian-like noises you figure that you will be able to elicit concessions and caring from people whose underlying metaphysical predicates for granting you that charity in the first place, you actually hold in nihilistic contempt.

    Yet you never have explained, and based on three years of exchanges you cannot, why you should be made these limitless concessions and sacrifices when doing so redounds negatively to the giver.

    The “best” you can do is whine about selfishness and utter some logically incoherent gibberish asserting that there are no absolutes; as if the negation of some existential proposition, entailed the absolute affirmation of a prescriptive one.

    Why don’t you do something constructive and go about proving that? The entire philosophical world awaits the completion of that particular trick.

  48. Hoagie says:
    August 13, 2012 at 22:26

    Did you actually say “Freedom, like everything else, has limits’?”

    Yes he said that. Now that he has even less use for it than he once did, the concept of you having political and economic freedom is nothing but a threat to his ability to appropriate and direct your life energies for his own benefit and comfort.

    He had his freedom. Yum, belch. It served its purpose and he gained by it. But why should the young now have freedom? How will that ensure Perry a fresh and continuing flow of satisfactions?

    Tell me Wagonwheel, what are the limits of Freedom. Common’ you ass, tell me where the end of freedom is and where the begi[nn]ing of……..WHAT is.

    There are no limits on what he and his kind may do to you, because there are no absolutes. But there are limits on what you may do for yourself and yours because there are no absolutes. Therefore, your freedom to keep what you honestly earn can be “justly” limited at will or even abolished because there are no absolutes.

    See how it works?

    “Freedom has NO limits.”

    The only no limits freedom progressives recognize is in the realm of non-reproductive sexual activity and suicide. Living, air breathing, bodily integrity, property ownership not so much if at all.

    Makes you wonder what the “liberal thing” actually is

    Freedom is what YOU hate. I will always be free.

    Romney/Ryan!

    BTW, Fuck Hussein.

    You condemn his sons because they were rapist murders? Why Hoagie, that was just their “culture”!

  49. DNW, you are full of yourself!

    It is noteworthy that you cannot resist to respond, the undisciplined phoney that you demonstrate yourself to be on this blog, and a narcissist as well.

    This is worth repeating, because it encapsulates your worthless ideology:

    “Freedom, like everything else, has limits, because each situation needs to be examined on its merits. I understand how this appears as anathema to an absolutist like yourself, which is probably a root cause of most wars.

    I feel like I am lecturing a first grader about fair play in the school yard. You are behaving like a first grader who wants it his way all the time.

    The idea of brotherhood happens to have a New Testament foundation, DNW, so you have just taken the position of a phoney, one who mouths certain platitudes because they sound good, while simultaneously covering up your internal truth, which is unbridled arrogance.

    You are who you are, which is impossible to hide from the perspicacious, if you talk/write enough, which you have on here.

    Moreover, it always has to be something in return. Why shouldn’t you be held in contempt by those who can see through your mask?”

    And one last thing about another false assumption and resultant spin:

    “You condemn his sons because they were rapist murders? Why Hoagie, that was just their “culture”!”

    By logical extension of your assumption, you know, putting words into my mouth, one would conclude that you are also guilty of rape, assuming you are or ever were a married man having consummated your marriage.

    Are you in fact still married, DNW?

  50. Schadenfreude rising:

    Just after DNW horsewhips Perry, the bruised and battered old nag impudently makes a show of begging for another thrashing.

  51. “Did you actually say “Freedom, like everything else, has limits’?

    Tell me Wagonwheel, what are the limits of Freedom. Common’ you ass, tell me where the end of freedom is and where the begiging of……..WHAT is.

    Freedom has NO limits. Freedom is what YOU hate. I will always be free.

    Romney/Ryan!

    BTW, Fuck Hussein.”

    If you don’t recognize the many limits to freedom, Hoagie, then you do not understand our Consitition, or our jurisprudence system.

    Instead you have a narcissistic instinct that can never be bridged by debate or suasion.

    I find it remarkable that our Editor, and Yorkshire sometimes, and even Eric sometimes are only folks on here with whom I can have an adult conversation. Other than these three, I find myself constantly responding to personal attacks, often without even a reference to an issue, most of which thus are unspoken admissions of weakness, where instead of conversing and debating, the personal attack is the main approach, to which, of course, requires a response in kind, because this is the only language most of you know.

    So again, bring it on with Romney/Ryan; I welcome that debate regarding, in foresight, the most critical election in my lifetime. Either we progress, or we fall back into a corrupt plutocracy, a clear choice that we American voters have to make come November.

  52. Schadenfreude rising:

    Just after DNW horsewhips Perry, the bruised and battered old nag impudently makes a show of begging for another thrashing.

    Ropelight, the king of copy and paste, and personal attacks, exhibits once more his liking for meaningless personal attacks with no substance. You behave like a weakling, ropelight.

  53. Freedom, like everything else, has limits, because each situation needs to be examined on its merits. I understand how this appears as anathema to an absolutist like yourself, which is probably a root cause of most wars.

    The difference is, our side wants to maximize freedom whereas your side wants to minimize it. You really should read DNW more carefully, since he has a point. Why should we compromose with you? We lose our freedom and get nothing back. Do you have an answer for this?

  54. Wagonwheel says:

    “You continue to take [Obama's] statement out of context, Eric, … But that’s what your breed does, mechanically!”

    “DNW, you are full of yourself! … noteworthy that you cannot resist to respond … undisciplined phoney that you demonstrate yourself to be … a narcissist as well.

    … your worthless ideology …

    … one would conclude that you are also guilty of rape … Are you in fact still married, DNW? …”

    ” … Are you still married, koolo? ”

    ” … Hoagie … you do not understand our Consitition, or our jurisprudence system. Instead you have a narcissistic instinct that can never be bridged by debate or suasion …”

    ” Ropelight, the king of copy and paste, and personal attacks, exhibits once more his liking for meaningless personal attacks with no substance. You behave like a weakling, ropelight. ”

    And,

    “I find it remarkable that our Editor, and Yorkshire sometimes, and even Eric sometimes are only folks on here with whom I can have an adult conversation. … So again, bring it on with Romney/Ryan; I welcome that debate regarding, in foresight, the most critical election in my lifetime. Either we progress, or …”

    Following which, ERIC says to Perry who claims to want a substantive debate:

    “The difference is, our side wants to maximize freedom whereas your side wants to minimize it. … Why should we comprom[i]se with you? We lose our freedom and get nothing back. Do you have an answer for this?”

    Well, Perry?

  55. Hoagie wrote in part:

    “Romney/Ryan!

    BTW, Fuck Hussein.”

    DNW wrote:

    [Hoagie]

    “Freedom has NO limits.”

    The only no limits freedom progressives recognize is in the realm of non-reproductive sexual activity and suicide. Living, air breathing, bodily integrity, property ownership not so much if at all.

    Makes you wonder what the “liberal thing” actually is …

    Freedom is what YOU hate. I will always be free.

    Romney/Ryan!

    BTW, Fuck Hussein.

    You condemn his sons because they were rapist murders? Why Hoagie, that was just their ‘culture’!”

    Perry then wrote:


    ‘You condemn his sons because they were rapist murders? Why Hoagie, that was just their “culture”!’

    By logical extension of your assumption, you know, putting words into my mouth, one would conclude that you are also guilty of rape …”

    Precisely what words did I put in your mouth, Perry?

    And please lay out the exact inference or “logical extension” which you now use to publicly accuse me of rape.

    This is important, since there may be consequences …

  56. WW wrote:

    If you don’t recognize the many limits to freedom, Hoagie, then you do not understand our Consitition, or our jurisprudence system.

    We all understand that your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of the next guy’s nose, but that is because your exercise of your rights cannot trample on someone else’s rights, which are equal to, but not superior to, your rights.

    Hoever, we certainly do have some freedoms which are absolute. We’ve discused this many times concerning the First and Second Amendments, but tere are certainly others; wouldn’t you agree with the absolutist point in the Fourteenth Amendment that:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Do you disagree that this Amendment is phrased in absolute terms, and don’t you absolutely agree with everything written in that paragraph?

    How about the Nineteenth Amendment, which absolutely guarantees that the right to vote shall not be restricted due to gender? Or the Twenty-Sixth, which absolutely requires every state to allow eighteen-year-olds to vote?

  57. Eric wrote:

    The difference is, our side wants to maximize freedom whereas your side wants to minimize it. You really should read DNW more carefully, since he has a point. Why should we compromose with you? We lose our freedom and get nothing back. Do you have an answer for this?

    [Raising hand!] For our friends on the left, we must surrender certain of our freedoms and rights for the good of society. Your right to keep and bear arms? Why, that’s archaic and barbaric, and must be surrendered for the good of society. Your freedom of speech? No, not really, it is perfectly reasonable for the state to limit your freedom of speech and of the press, because if it doesn’t, then those wicked corporations might exercise the freedom of speech! Equal protection of the laws? Well, it certainly sounds nice, but then how can we have Affirmative Action, to take care of the disadvantaged? The right to privacy? No, we can’t really allow that to keep the government from checking to make sure you bought health insurance.

    The only absolute freedom that our friends on the left recognize is the right to have an abortion.

  58. Editor says:
    August 14, 2012 at 16:45

    Eric wrote:

    The difference is, our side wants to maximize freedom whereas your side wants to minimize it. You really should read DNW more carefully, since he has a point. Why should we compromose with you? We lose our freedom and get nothing back. Do you have an answer for this?

    [Raising hand!] For our friends on the left, we must surrender certain of our freedoms and rights for the good of society. Your right to keep and bear arms? Why, that’s archaic and barbaric, and must be surrendered for the good of society. Your freedom of speech? No, not really, it is perfectly reasonable for the state to limit your freedom of speech and of the press, because if it doesn’t, then those wicked corporations might exercise the freedom of speech! Equal protection of the laws? Well, it certainly sounds nice, but then how can we have Affirmative Action, to take care of the disadvantaged? The right to privacy? No, we can’t really allow that to keep the government from checking to make sure you bought health insurance.

    The only absolute freedom that our friends on the left recognize is the right to have an abortion.”

    That, or a number of even more absurd acts which we are expected to pay the costs of when they backfire on the practitioners.

    But back to your point that by liberal lights, rights may be taken away from you and invidious and discriminatory penalties laid upon you for the “good of society”.

    One naturally wishes to ask “What society, in particular?” This, since it is difficult to imagine how a collection of individuals conveniently classed or as denominated as a society because they voluntarily associate for certain ends, can logically be said to receive a benefit as a whole if the benefit is not distributive but is in fact based on harming or lessening the liberty and life chances of some “in society” so that others may experience the comfort and ease of living off them – through, and by means of, the mediation and coercive apparatus of the state.

    This then involves us in the question of what a “society” is and “is for” and whether it can sensibly be said to have interests apart from the interests of its members. Does it have an organic reality of its own? If so, how then do people manage to survive the transition to forming new networks associations?

    The fact is that progressives hypostatize the concept of “society” – a verb-like term – into an eternal noun, and merely impute a benefit or a “good” to those who don’t really receive any good out of their sacrifice.

    It’s the same thing the Libtards did during the Right to Keep and Bear Arms argument. Yes, you have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as a member of the people, but qualifiedly, as a member of the militia, which has now been transformed into the National Guard through the Dick Act. So you have and exercise your individual right not personally but vicariously through the ability of some social subset to actually exercise the right.

    No, you don’t literally have it, but it is imputed to you as a member of the termite heap, er, collective, nonetheless.

    Thus the good of society, as defined by the high priests of Libtardism, may require something bad for you and for yours. But because the taking will be to the advantage of say a new version of the “select militia” it is imputed as being good for you too. Even though it may destroy you and yours without there being any existential danger to the whole political community in the first place.

    A good example of this crank pseudo-philosophy can be found in the monomaniacal rantings of one “G. Eyclesheimer Ernst” [Ernest McGill] of the one man band and anti-firearms bearing rights political “institute” Potowmack.

    This type of crank exhibits a hatred of individual sovereignty to any degree, and a communitarian fervor so extreme, as to make one queasy as to exactly what boundaries he is really interested in trying to abolish.

  59. I find it remarkable that our Editor, and Yorkshire sometimes, and even Eric sometimes are only folks on here with whom I can have an adult conversation. Other than these three, I find myself constantly responding to personal attacks, often without even a reference to an issue, most of which thus are unspoken admissions of weakness, where instead of conversing and debating, the personal attack is the main approach, to which, of course, requires a response in kind, because this is the only language most of you know.

    Oh please. This is because THEY are vastly superior human beings to you … that they have the patience of Job in dealing with your hypocritical histrionics.

    You’d actually have a point if you weren’t such a hypocrite. But we’ve been through this way too many times to count. You’d recognize that, too, but your memory lasts for only about 2 minutes, tops.

  60. You don’t need to listen to me about this Romney-Ryan disaster. Instead, listen to Republicans. From Politico:

    “But Washington political chatter is a pervasive reality even when the chatterers prefer not to risk personal relationships or professional prospects by publicly second-guessing their party’s nominee. For Romney, even if he ultimately proves the doubters wrong, the skepticism among capital insiders is an obstacle as he seeks to frame a general election argument.
    And that skepticism about Ryan among GOP strategists is striking.
    They’re worried about inviting Medicare — usually death for Republicans — into the campaign. They’re worried it sidetracks the jobs issue. They’re worried he’ll expose the fact that Romney doesn’t have a budget plan. Most of all, they’re worried that Romney was on track to lose anyway — and now that feels all but certain.

    “I think it’s a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It’s going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big,” said former President George W. Bush senior adviser Mark McKinnon.

    Moreover, Ryan is being touted as a “fiscal conservative”, but his record does not demonstrate this:

    * Ryan voted for the two unpaid for Bush tax cuts;

    * Ryan voted for the two unpaid for Bush Wars;

    * Ryan voted for the unpaid for Medicare Part D;

    this hardly defines a “fiscal conservative”!

    Bring it on!!!

  61. Indeed! Bring it on! The list of Dictator Obama’s broken promises and hypocrisy could make for a lengthy post in here. And Passive-Aggressive Perry would have a pathetic excuse for each one of them.

  62. You continue to take that statement out of context, Eric, which I provided for you.

    Obama said it, he meant it, that’s all the context you need.

  63. Raising hand!] For our friends on the left, we must surrender certain of our freedoms and rights for the good of society.

    I used to be naive and actually believed this. Now I see the truth. Left wingers are interested only in power. The “Good of society” is only the excuse they use to take our freedom away.

  64. And that skepticism about Ryan among GOP strategists is striking.

    And you quoted exactly ONE such “Strategist”. Not very impressive. Face it, the choice of Ryan has forced left wingers to start talking about ISSUES again, as opposed to how many tax returns Romney should disclose. And the Obama campaign desperately doesn’t want to talk about issues, especially big issues like the economy and the deficit/debt. And then there’s Joe Biden, talking about putting black people back in chains. Really, is this Obama’s second in command, or a circus clown?

  65. Yes, those Republican behind-the-scenes powerbrokers, who were stabbing Palin in the back during the 2008 election cycle, are the same powerbrokers the TEA Party has been busily throwing out of power. And they don’t like it. Not one bit.

    So the Ryan choice made all the right people mad. And energized all the right people. Too bad for the Country Club Elitist Ruling Class Republicans. But very good for our nation if we are going to rescue it from the Socialist demise President Cloward-Piven has recklessly driven us toward.

Comments are closed.