Gingrich Gets it Right

From CNN:

“I am not for a narrow victory,” he said. “I am for crushing the left in every single way.”

Gingrich was, of course, Matt’s first choice for nominee – he was my 2nd or 3rd (Santorum was always my first).  For me, Romney was a bit back there in the pack but always with the understanding that the crucial necessity is to ensure that Obama leaves office on January 20th, 2013.

The capstone for getting rid of Obama came, in my view, just recently – when it was revealed that in 1991 he was described as being born in Kenya.  Naturally, the Obamatons leaped to in action when this came out and called it a “mistake”.  But I don’t buy that – I call it a lie, instead.   Here is the key to Obama:  he’ll say or do anything to advance himself.  Back when he was just starting out being from an upper class, white Hawaiian family just didn’t cut enough liberal ice – being a foreign born son of a radical anti-British communist!  Well, that did the trick quite nicely.

From “composite” girlfriends in his autobiography (which, it would seem, millions of liberal pinheads bought but few read) to joining Wright’s racist church, Obama has merely crafted a narrative for himself as best suited his immediate needs.  And the cruelty with which he tosses aside old friends like Wright (say what you will about Wright, but have some sympathy:  for 20 years Obama and Wright were close and then Wright got in the way of the newest narrative, and he had to go) is just another indicator of the wrongness of Obama.

I don’t really know what Obama is up to – he’s up to radical leftism, but with what goal in mind, I don’t know:  I suspect there isn’t one in the traditional, political sense.  All we’re seeing now is yet another narrative, this one designed to get Obama re-elected.  After that, he’ll just go on to the next narrative – whatever makes him continue to rise up the ladder in his own estimation.  The trouble is that we need a President – someone who cares less about himself and more about the United States.  A re-elected Obama will not just pursue stupid, destructive policies, but he’ll also ignore any problem which can’t lead to more glory for Obama – and that is a recipe for national and global catastrophe.

Gingrich sees this – and sees more:  Obama must go, but the left as a whole must be crushed.  Our only task as conservatives, patriots and Americans from now until November 6th is to beat these people.  Because if we don’t, we’re going to pay too high a price for failure.

165 thoughts on “Gingrich Gets it Right

  1. dennis May 26, 2012 / 2:39 am

    Ama: “And no, there were no ‘other breaches of legality and human rights’. You are simply a tool, a mindless parrot of lies and propaganda,and to have you then lecture on things like truth and honor is just bizarre. I can’t think of any poster in recent memory who has posted so many lies, one after the other, packed into post after post.”

    Bla bla bla.

    In 2006 The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that military commissions established by the Bush admin to try detainees at Guantanamo violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Most rational people would call that a breach of legality.

    In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of the right of habeas corpus. A breach of legality, also of human rights that have been recognized since the Magna Carta.

    The Fifth Amendment guarantees no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Bush admin ordered the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi without access to counsel, charges or opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge their detentions. That also was a violation of both the Constitution and human rights.

    And that barely scratches the surface. There is extraordinary rendition (an egregious violation of human rights), there is torture, deceiving Congress – not to mention a long list of articles of impeachment that were entered against the Bush administration you can easily find by Googling. Of course it was ignored by nearly everyone because the public had no stomach for another impeachment, even if this one would have been more relevant than Clinton’s by magnitudes, constitutionally speaking. Congress – either party – wasn’t about to punch that tar baby. The War on Terra was seen as sufficient excuse for just about any excess the Bush admin wanted to pursue.

    This is not to re-litigate the offenses of the Bush admin, but to show how disconnected from reality your logorrhea is. As for warrantless wiretapping, I dismiss your folksy rationalization excusing Bush’s constitutional violations. In short the Democratic Congress of 2008 legalized the bulk of Bush’s spying after the fact by vesting new power in the government to eavesdrop without warrants. I’ve been steamed at Obama for this, and for many other continuations of Bush policies (plus human rights violations he’s done on his own) ever since. That’s a whole nother topic – however nothing Obama has done to date would make me vote for Romney in the coming election. There are degrees of wrongness and I definitely will choose what I see as the lesser of known evils.

    • tiredoflibbs May 26, 2012 / 6:49 am

      denny the drone: “I’ve been steamed at Obama for this, and for many other continuations of Bush policies (plus human rights violations he’s done on his own) ever since. That’s a whole nother topic – however nothing Obama has done to date would make me vote for Romney in the coming election. There are degrees of wrongness and I definitely will choose what I see as the lesser of known evils.”

      As I have said, you give obAMATEUR a pass while you continue to whine and bitch about Bush. A pass on “attacking a country without provocation or threat” (Libya) and as you admit, obAMATEUR’s continuation of Bush’s policies after promising he would repeal them (bearing false witness against the brotherhood of man).

      Thank you for reaffirming that you are a mindless drone and a hack. In short, you are what Stalin said of Useful Idiots.


    • tiredoflibbs May 26, 2012 / 7:41 am

      in 2009, obAMATEUR signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

      Tell us denny, this legislation upheld the use of Military Commissions and tribunals, how does this NOT go against your oh so pious beliefs and that these commissions do not “gut the Geneva Conventions” as you put it?

      Of course, you will find a way to weasel out and again give obAMATEUR a pass. You say you are steamed at obAMATEUR, but of course you NEVER criticize him here in this forum.

      On the contrary, you mindlessly defend him.

      Also tell us, the evils that Romney has done that outweighs, as you claim, the “evils” obAMATUER has done….

      … this should be interesting, but knowing denny, he will not touch this.

    • Amazona May 26, 2012 / 9:38 am

      Wow. Three people and you use this to indict an entire administration and policy of 8 years.

      I suppose you are hostile to, say, the entire government of Washington DC. After all, the laws there are broken every single SECOND, by tens of thousands of people. This HAS to mean the mayor, police chief, and entire administration are in favor of murder, rape and robbery, eh?

      You are such a silly bunny, and such a drama queen.

      It’s a holiday weekend. Take some time off, polish your smug some more, and see if you can find a new topic you can use to illustrate your many phobias and obsessions. These are pretty worn out.

    • Amazona May 26, 2012 / 9:41 am


      Ruby Ridge
      Wen Ho Lee

      Look ’em up

  2. Amazona May 25, 2012 / 7:59 pm

    Well, Dave, you have finally managed to be half right—–Liberalism is NOT about running this nation according to its Constitutional laws. But half right means half wrong, and the wrong half is a doozy.

    It’s one thing to simply be ignorant of the definition of 21st Century American conservatism, but it is another thing entirely to just deny its nature when it is explained to you.

    I think we have sparred before, when you attacked me for stating the obvious—-that there are only two main political systems vying for control in this county, Constitutional Conservatism and the collectivist and redistributionist ideology of the Left. As one is small central government strictly restricted as to size, scope and power, and based on a belief in the free market and individual freedom, and the other is based on large and extremely powerful and controlling central government with government economic controls and collectivism instead of individualism, the two are opposites, and one cannot be in favor of legislation which defies the constraints of the Constitution and still believe that the Constitution is and should be the law of the land.

    You are shrilly arguing that someone can be two diametrically opposite things at the same time. While you can have some black and some white and get grey, you cannot have some north and some south and get sorth. You cannot be a vegetarian if you eat meat. You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe in God.

    The simple fact is that what you want, such as “universal health care” (though I think you are really only talking about the United States and not the universe) and still, at the same time, believe that the restrictions upon the Federal Government regarding its limitations to the few enumerated duties delegated to it is the right way to run the nation.

    You do not grasp the concept of ideology, much less the definitions of different ideologies. You do not understand that issues and policies and identity and scandal and events are not ideology. You have a childishly simpleminded grasp of politics in general, and you cling to this naive and clueless state because this is your comfort zone, insisting that you will not learn, but that the world must revolve around your ignorance.

    I’m pretty sure that odd combination of ignorance and arrogance has not worked well for you in the past, and it certainly will not get you any traction in any discussion of real politics.

  3. Amazona May 26, 2012 / 9:35 am

    Dave, you’ve been bleating about this alleged universe of very very different political systems out there, from which we can freely pick and choose. Yet when challenged, you never come up with any.


    I believe you once tried a little wish list that made you sound like a beauty queen pageant contestant—“freedom, health care, no hunger, ponies for all, it only rains after sunset…” and that type of giddy peek into a Utopian future in which all problems are solved by a benevolent government.

    But this is not a political model.

    A political system is a blueprint for how best to govern a nation. I submit that there are, at heart, only two models—big government and small government. Certainly there are people who try to hedge their bets and say they want mostly small government except where they want their government to be bigger. But the most basic choices of political systems is between one with a small, rigidly restrained, central government restricted as to size, scope and power, which in the United States is a government controlled by our Constitution, or a larger and more powerful central government with extensive scope and authority.

    And this is where you start flapping your hands and howling about how I am completely MISSING the fact that there can be governments that fall somewhere in between, that do not fit either category. What YOU miss is that any government has a core ideology, and only around this core is any modified system tacked on.

    Perhaps it would be easier for you if this core political tenet is reduced to one word: Restricted, or not restricted. Limited (by law) or not limited.

    First, I have always stated that these two models represent the basic governmental choices available to us. And while you are having your little temper tantrum about how stupid this idea is, you still can’t seem to come up with even one other basic governmental system.

    Second, I have stated, and will state again, that once you have decided you want a government whose power is not restricted by the Constitution, which can expand its size and scope and authority at any time, you have stepped beyond the boundaries of our Constitution and are advocating a government which is contrary to the law of the land. Because you simply cannot be “for” a rule of law you simultaneously want to ignore or discard.

    I understand how deeply vested you are in not only maintaining but defending moral and legal relativity—it’s clearly the tent pole around which your entire political identity is built—-and I understand why you need to fight so strenuously against anything that chips away at the illusion that you can be a Constitutionalist and at the same time advocate ignoring or subverting that same Constitution.

    Everything is easier without rules, when any action can be excused or allowed based on the perceived need of the moment. And this is peachy when you agree with that perceived need. Where you get in trouble is when someone else, in power, perceives a need you don’t agree with. That’s when you appreciate the presence of a controlling legal authority to prevent these other people from doing what you don’t want them to do.

    What the flexibility folks, the relativists, want is a controlling legal authority to stop things they don’t like, but none when things are going their way. But the danger lies in vesting these kinds of decisions in individuals—which brings us back to Sowell’s book on the Conflict of Visions, the difference between the Constrained and the Unconstrained view of humanity and politics. Another topic for another day. (But if there is any element of a desire for serious discussion in your need to post here, I suggest that you read the book.)

    Clarity and specificity are enemies of the Left, as the Left desperately needs the “flexibility”, as Obama just explained it, to do whatever it wants to do and redefine terms as it chooses to add credibility to whatever it is doing.

    But there ARE definitions, in this case definitions of political ideology. Too bad that these definitions make you uncomfortable. Perhaps you might take a break from the insult-fest and look into your own belief system and find out just why you are so freaked out about being asked to define your own political beliefs and then place them on an ideological spectrum, and decide where they fit regarding, say, a true belief in the Constitution.

    Keep in mind that I do not dispute your absolute right to choose a Leftist, collectivist, redistributionist, system. I merely suggest that if this is a choice based upon an intellectual, objective analysis of this system you ought to be able, and willing, to explain it and defend it. In political terms, not in airy-fairy accounts of its alleged social engineering goals, but in terms of its actual successes in governing nations.

    When you can’t, or won’t, define and then defend the system you apparently favor, it is natural to assume that your position is not based on any form or degree of intelligent choice but on mere emotion.

    When you freak out, as you routinely do, and expend so much time and energy fighting the suggestion that you ought to at least understand your political position and be able to define and defend it, there is a message there that on some level you realize not only that you don’t understand it, and can’t defend it, but that you don’t even want to go there because doing so would challenge this position in your own mind and force you to reevaluate your entire political identity.


    I know. i was there. Many have been. David Horowitz and David Manet, to name two other Daves, which by the way also have literary connections.

  4. Amazona May 26, 2012 / 11:56 pm

    Ah, “nuance”.

    In other words I am describing the structure of a building and you are obsessed with the curtains.

    Clearly this is about as deep as you are able to go when it comes to political discourse. You don’t even know the difference between ideology (a political system) and identity, or ideology (a political system) and issues, but you sure are absolute in your conviction that this makes you smarter than I am.

    So far we’ve seen how that is working out for you. How many times do you think you can make excuses for not being able to answer questions, or simply ignoring them, before your abject ignorance is completely exposed? (I’d say about six posts ago.)

  5. Retired Spook May 25, 2012 / 10:30 pm

    Under your previous personas you at least made weak attempts to have a dialogue, Dave. You seem to have devolved into just trading insults like a 12-year-old, only not as well. Too bad — I’ve enjoyed our previous jousts. Now you’re just a waste of time.

  6. Amazona May 26, 2012 / 8:54 am

    Yet all Dave does is sputter insults and denials, without offering a single actual rebuttal.

    Clearly Dave’s entire political persona is nothing but sputtering, insulting and denying.

  7. Dave Bowman May 26, 2012 / 1:17 pm

    “You seem to have devolved into just trading insults”

    It’s an insult to point out that Amazona demands people accept fallacies as truth? You need to toughen up, guy. As does Amazona.

  8. tiredoflibbs May 26, 2012 / 1:32 pm

    wow ama, you just described Wally (JACO , bodie, monty, Montgomery, cgjeff, etc. etc.) to a T.

    It seems he may have found a new identity.

  9. Retired Spook May 26, 2012 / 3:08 pm

    You need to toughen up, guy. As does Amazona.

    Toughen up to deal with the likes of you, Dave? Hardly. You haven’t said anything worth dealing with yet. It seems as though each time you come back in a new reincarnation, you’re less attached to reality. Is it a medication thing?

  10. Amazona May 26, 2012 / 11:45 pm

    Dave not only can not, and/or will not, engage in any discussion in which he would be expected to take a position on a political system, he is frantically trying to set up a scenario in which it is my fault he won’t.

    Oh, he COULD, you see, he really really could. But he won’t, because then I might………..uh………well……… or say something.

    So he could, he really really could, knowing so much and all, having so many answers and all, but it’s my fault it will never happen.

    Too funny.

  11. Amazona May 26, 2012 / 11:50 pm

    Dave claims I want people to accept fallacies as truth, but we are supposed to take his word for it that what I say is fallacious, and he refuses to give examples to prove how wrong I am. His position seems to be “I know more than you do but I’m not going to tell you what I know”.

    As far as I can tell, Dave’s entire objection to anything I say is “Huh-UH!!!!”

  12. Retired Spook May 27, 2012 / 8:40 am

    “I know more than you do but I’m not going to tell you what I know”.

    As I said, sort of like a 12-year-old, only more nuanced — or maybe less nuanced. It’s kinda hard to tell.

    The curious thing to me is why people come to a political blog and refuse to discuss “politics”? I’ve lost hope that one of our Lefties would discuss Progressive successes of the past and how they apply today, but I’m surprised some bright-eyed, idealist hasn’t at least described how he or she believes it will work differently this time around if we could just get the right people in charge.

  13. tiredoflibbs May 27, 2012 / 9:26 am

    Ama and spook, more and more this guy sounds like Wally.

    He can change his name but he cannot change his style or tactic.

  14. Retired Spook May 27, 2012 / 9:51 am

    Ama and spook, more and more this guy sounds like Wally.

    He can change his name but he cannot change his style or tactic.

    Tired, similar tactic, I agree, but he sounds significantly more intelligent than Wally. I’m thinking more like Corey/Jonathan Swift. Bottom line, it doesn’t really matter who he is; he’s a circular argument kind of guy who isn’t here for rational discussions.

  15. Retired Spook May 27, 2012 / 6:41 pm

    You’ve demonstrated here that if you get even slight resistance, you stomp off in a huff. That’s not exactly indicative of a thick skin.

    That’s a bald-faced lie, Dave, when, in fact, the reverse is true. But then that’s what we’ve come to expect from you.

  16. Amazona May 27, 2012 / 10:30 pm

    Spook has never backed off, but Dave spends so much time ducking and dodging and avoiding actual content that he spins like a top.

    And, predictably, when called on it he simply lies.

  17. Retired Spook May 27, 2012 / 10:49 pm

    Spook has never backed off,

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’ve NEVER backed off. Ultimately, however, it comes down to is the other person trying to understand where I’m coming from, and does he present a convincing argument to help me understand where he’s coming from. Dave does neither, and I clearly don’t have the patience that you do with frauds like Dave who has given absolutely no indication that he desires any kind of meaningful dialogue.

  18. Amazona May 27, 2012 / 11:35 pm

    Spook, you’ve thrown up your hands and walked away when a poster has just been so intransigent and obdurate (just showing show-off Dave that I know some big words too) that it is obvious there is nothing to be gained by further conversation.

    But I’ve never seen you back off because you were bested, or because you simply did not want to answer a question. On the contrary, it’s the Libs who scurry off when you push too hard, or retreat into mindless insults.

    What amuses me is when someone like Dave makes an assertion, a really really strong assertion, and then when asked to elaborate goes to great lengths to avoid backing it up.

    A case in point is Dave’s constant repetition that there is not only a vast universe of various political models from which to choose, but that I am woefully stupid and narrow-minded to see only two basic types. Fine, I say, give me some examples.

    And what does he do? He insults me while changing the subject.

    I come back to it, and say, please do tell me of another political system that is not primarily defined either by small central government with most power and authority vested in local and state governments, or by large and powerful central governments which control most of the power and authority.

    And this is what happens. I did not pull this question out of thin air. It is a direct response to something Dave has not only said but insisted upon, and been so adamant about that he has felt justified in personally attacking me for my inability to recognize these other, oh-so-different, political models. So after hearing this repeated so often, I ask for examples, and he simply cannot respond, at least not with an example. All he has is another litany of insults and personal attacks.

    I’m tired of him, too. All this posturing and quibbling and carrying on, and after all of this melodrama on his part he has yet to offer one single idea, just spite and malice. Being pompous does not mean he is not a phony, it just means he is a particularly pompous phony.

  19. Retired Spook May 28, 2012 / 3:25 pm

    “given absolutely no indication that he desires any kind of meaningful dialogue.”

    Yeah, that’s usually the excuse you hurl over your shoulder as you’re stomping off.

    Nope, Dave. Sorry, gotta call liar on you again — I’m sensing a disturbing trend here. The statement was true, and I’m still here.

    Hey, have you done your Goldwater research yet?

    Just as soon as Canadian Observer is finished with her Shore Bank research.

  20. Amazona May 30, 2012 / 5:44 am

    The only point Spook has proved is that you are nothing but a loud-mouthed jerk who aspires to be a bully but can’t carry that off so is merely a lot of impotent noise.

    You seem to think that you, and people like you, have the authority to hurl accusations and demand that others do “research” on things you assign to them, but none of you should be expected to support anything you claim.

    Oh, I can see why you need to try this tactic, given your total ignorance and inability to back up any of the mental excrement you and your kind dump on this blog on a regular basis. What is so funny is that you seem to think that no one will notice that you are frantically scrambling to cover up the fact that you can bluster and insult and lie, but you can’t back up any of your bluster with fact.

    All you can do is add to the steaming pile you have already deposited, and try to distract from the paucity of actual political content in your temper tantrums and spewings of irrational hate.

    I have been challenging you for a long time now to produce and define any political model which falls outside the two basic systems I have outlined, and you simply can’t do it. So you try to distract from the obvious fact that you have been shown up as a fraud by trying to shift attention to some question you have come up with. You seem to think that your feeble efforts to ridicule and your pathetic efforts to distract by trying to get people to go where you try to point them will cover up your own abject ignorance and inability to back up any of your hyper-emotional assertions.

    Sorry, Dave, but when you trolls throw crap out there you will be called upon to back it up with fact, and so far none of you have been able to do so. You just start making a lot of noise in a different direction, trying to distract from the fact that you are nothing but sound and fury. However, we here have noticed your ranting and raving and insults and goofy efforts to shift the discourse away from your lack of real political content, and your dependence on flaunting your hostile personality disorder which you seem to think passes for political commentary.

  21. Amazona May 30, 2012 / 6:00 am

    Speaking of “challenges” where is that list of political systems which represent neither a constrained central government restricted as to size, power and authority nor a large central government with expansive power and authority?

    C’mon now—-you’ve been whining for months that there is a vast universe of political models which fit into neither category, yet when challenged you just insult me and scurry off without giving a single example.

    I think I may start a series of posts on day vs night, so you can ridicule the “binary” nature of my “facile” description and regale us with your claims of sooooooo many other options of sunlight vs lack of same. Options which, of course, would be only degrees of sunlight or lack of same, but which your oppositional little mind would claim represent alternatives to day and night.

    You were, for a while, moderately amusing as a poster boy for the unhinged Left, but now that you have degenerated into nothing but a Wallace-like lie and insult machine you are simply tiresome. You have served your purpose here, as an illustration of the absolute lack of political knowledge and understanding that mark the Pseudo-Left, and its dependence on hostility and dishonesty to even be able to post on a political blog.

  22. Retired Spook May 30, 2012 / 8:47 am

    Uh-huh. You’ve proved my point wonderfully.

    No I haven’t, because you never made a point, other than to claim that Goldwater and Reagan would be rejected by the current Conservative movement, which is B.S..

    Goldwater is remembered as the Father of the Conservative Movement, but Goldwater ended his life as a religious bigot who had no use for Fundamentalist Christians, at least insofar as they desired to be part of the political process. Other than that one shortcoming, Goldwater was a big 10th Amendment guy, just like the majority of the Tea Party.

    You political and historical ignoramuses on the Left seem to think that right-wing religious fanatics have taken over the Conservative movement, when nothing could be further from the truth. They have a place at the table, as well they should, and I’ve spoken with many of them, particularly at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Rally in August, 2010. I have yet to hear a single person suggest that what we need is a theocracy, or that Christian teachings should be anything more than a moral guide for public servants. If you want to get upset about something, how about you get upset with the Socialist, Marxist and Muslim radicals that permeate the upper echelons of this administration. They’re the ones who actually have an agenda, and it’s not one that I’d care to live under.

    Oh, and the reference to Shore Bank is an inside joke. A year or so ago, I made reference to the number of Obama insiders who were complicit in the Shore Bank scandal. Canadian Observer, in her usual snide and condescending way, asked if I could provide more details. I gave her links to a couple articles and asked her to report back. In spite of repeated reminders, she never did — SORTA LIKE YOU, DAVE.

  23. Amazona May 30, 2012 / 11:43 am

    Yeah, Dave,, you’re new to the blog. Right. Your snide, fact-free, question-dodging, insult-laden, pompous style is pretty distinctive, you know.

    And yet again you offer absolutely no commentary, just more peeks into your pathology. Tiresome, so tiresome. And a liar as well. You can’t even make up your own lies but have to recycle the tired old lies of your Lefty minders.

    You seem to think you are quite the clever debater, so proud of your linguistic footwork as you duck and dodge every question and frantically work to try to spin everything into another insult or attack.

    But you are just tiresome, and a fraud, to boot.

    Come back when you have something to offer. You can start with some of those many many, infinitely many, political systems you keep carping about. I notice you still haven’t managed to come up with any. Fifty years might put a nice finish on a good wine, but not on the Goldwater whine you are suddenly so obsessed with.

    Yes, you will claim that I, and probably Spook, have been bested by brilliant repartee and irrefutable political acumen, but in fact I for one see you as the blog equivalent of the armless legless knight from Monty Python, impotent and helpless, calling people cowards as they ride around him. You got nothing.

    You’ve used up a lot of bandwidth just to prove that you are snottier and bitchier and crazier than anyone else. Fine. Your work is done.

  24. Retired Spook May 30, 2012 / 12:45 pm

    I’m glad I finally got you to at least take a stab at it, weak as that stab may have been. But it’s better than having you duck and dodge and make excuses.

    You are a sick, deluded individual, Dave. I will have to admit, though, that you’re a pro at accusing others of doing precisely what you, yourself are guilty of. Pretty funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

  25. Amazona June 2, 2012 / 9:48 am

    Dave, your lying has really gotten out of control. Unfortunately, this is a character issue and not something that can be treated with your meds, but you really ought to try to work on it.

    No one admitted to having his or her feelings hurt. You can always tell when someone is flat-out nuts, such as when he claims that a post directly above his says something it clearly does not say. Nuts, desperate, whatever.

    Take a deep breath and think, just for a minute, of all the people who shut you off, walk away, avoid you, don’t take your calls, and in general do the same thing the moderator did here, which is to just write you off as a pompous annoying gasbag reeking of hostility and just plain nastiness. Yeah, right—-it’s coming into focus now, isn’t it?

    You are not guaranteed an audience for your pathology just because this is a blog and you can spew your mental sewage anonymously. You can still be shunned for being you, just like you are in real life.

    Looks like you are the one who needs to toughen up, because it looks like this is your future, sport, as well as your past.

  26. Amazona June 2, 2012 / 2:35 pm

    Dave, I’m going to walk you through this, OK? Nice and slow, so I don’t lose you.

    Go find yourself a nice big pin. You can straighten out a big safety pin if you want to. Now gently use it to pierce that huge gasbag of ego that you float around in—-not too much, because the pressure if released too quickly will have you spinning around the room and you want to just let that ego ease out nice and slow so you don’t get hurt.

    There……with some of that ego pressure reduced now you might be able to understand that there is absolutely no way you could hurt my feelings, and I’ll bet I speak for Spook on this, too. You see, to hurt my feelings I would have to have some respect for you, some regard for your opinion, and that just ain’t in the picture here, sport.

    To even cling to that fantasy, of having the ability to hurt ANYONE’S feelings, even after what I said, merely illustrates the extent of your delusion, the same delusion that has you not only politically ignorant but standing on the table beating your chest and bellowing that anyone who does understand political systems is an idiot.

    And you get no closer to “the truth” than a passing glimpse as it passes you by, while you keep your nose to your rear end reveling in the pleasures of your own ……… self.

    I couldn’t care less who brought up Goldwater. You have the most amazing quality of focusing on the most irrelevant aspect of any post, and then shaking it like a terrier with a rat. Give it up. It doesn’t matter. You don’t matter.

    You have no concept of political philosophy. You think identity is politics, you think scandal and personality are politics, you are utterly clueless—-but snotty as hell on top of it.

    With all your insults and your verbiage you have yet to post a single actual political thought, and the “thoughts” that you do post are so fatuous, so vapid, so lacking in content, so dependent on insults, and so blatantly designed to let you smugly preen over a nice vocabulary that you are completely transparent as an empty suit, or whatever the internet equivalent is.

  27. Retired Spook June 2, 2012 / 11:19 pm

    PS: I encourage you to actually read this thread and see who brought up Goldwater, Amazona. Hint: It wasn’t me. I merely pointed out to the person who first brought him up how fundamentally flawed his comparison was. He wasn’t quite able to handle that. Oh well.

    Dave, you are just so full of crap. First of all, it wasn’t I who first brought up Goldwater; it was Cavalor. Second, the initial statement I made about Goldwater was “The current Conservative movement mirrors much of what Goldwater stood for: individual freedom, rugged individualism, adherence to the Constitution.”

    Now let’s look at what another writer from Fox News said about Goldwater last year:

    But if we were able to resurrect someone from the past or at least their ideals and words, my choice would be Barry Goldwater, the man who in the election of 1964 sacrificed himself on the barbed wire of the political battlefield so that Reagan could jump over him and lead the conservative forces to victory 16 years later.

    Without Goldwater there would not have been a Ronald Reagan.

    Who was Barry Goldwater?

    Goldwater was a true son of the West who was born in Arizona while it was still a territory. He was a businessman and Brigadier General in the Air Force reserve with a lifelong love of flying. He believed in rugged individualism, self-reliance, strict adherence to the Constitution, and limited government. But most of all he believed in freedom.


    The Tea Party in some ways represents the Goldwater forces of 47 years ago. Like him they are fighting against both the Democratic establishment but also the establishment in the Republican Party.

    Just like Barry they want to change the way Washington does business not become a part of the entrenched “go along to get along” culture that pervades the nation’s capitol.

    I voted in my first general election in 1966, two years after Goldwater lost to LBJ. I remember Goldwater from what he actually said and did, not from some things he said very late in his life and what some Leftist web site misrepresented about him years later.

  28. Amazona May 27, 2012 / 10:25 pm

    Gee, Dave, I can only remember a couple of questions from you, and they were so fatuous I thought they were rhetorical. But if you are now going to whine because they were ignored, well, let’s just take a look at them now, OK?

    “At what point does “small government” become “big government”?

    For what country? For what population? In peacetime or during a war? Local, state or federal government?

    “Does that apply purely to fiscal matters? ”

    How do you plan to separate “fiscal matters” from, say, social engineering? Do you envision a government which needs lots and lots of money for things other than redistribution? Be more clear.

    “Do you seriously believe those you shaggily define as “liberals” want “big government” just because? ”

    See, this is the kind of “question” that it is really hard to take seriously, but if you are going to be in a snit over it, I’ll tell you outright, NO, I do not believe, seriously or in jest, that Liberals want big government just for the sake of big government.


    First, my definition of Liberal is pretty specific. Shaggy? What an odd thing to say. Anyway, a Liberal supports and promotes a political system based upon a large and powerful central government active in matters of social engineering, using redistribution of wealth to try to accomplish social goals. A Liberal is a collectivist, choosing to “level the playing field” by artificially and arbitrarily controlling things like income and employment and production, to achieve a concept of equality based on outcome. These are the core of the political system advocated by Liberals—large, powerful central government, a collectivist model, and redistribution of wealth.

    Not shaggy, not fuzzy, not shedding, not fluffy.

    I think Liberals want big government because Liberals at the top see big government as the means of gaining and retaining power and wealth, and Liberals below them want big government because they are emotion-driven and drawn to the fantasy that the world’s problems can be solved by having big government apply vast amounts of OPM and imposing “social justice”.

    “Do you think there’s ever been any justification whatsoever for any expansion of government?”

    Absolutely. Another DUH.

    There. Did I miss any? I skimmed back over your posts and didn’t see any others but I may have missed a question or two buried in your litanies of how awful I am and the verbiage you come up with to try to cover up your refusal to answer any of MY questions—-which are, by the way, legitimate and not just silly efforts at gotchas.

  29. Amazona May 27, 2012 / 10:28 pm

    Dave, your turn.

    Dave, you’ve been bleating about this alleged universe of very very different political systems out there, from which we can freely pick and choose. Yet when challenged, you never come up with any.

    So tell us of another political system that is not based either on the United States Constitution or a model of large government exerting great control over the populace.

  30. Amazona May 29, 2012 / 10:57 am

    Dave, you do realize you are getting sillier and sillier, don’t you?

    What is so interesting is to see how easily you let your dignity be sacrificed in the pursuit of a shrill temper tantrum. While your original questions remain fatuous and irrelevant, feeble attempts at gotchas, your response to my noting this can be addressed.

    You asked me: “At what point does “small government” become “big government”? ” and I quite reasonably asked you to clarify your query, as it is so broad, so vague, and so nonspecific it can’t be answered. So I said “For what country? For what population? In peacetime or during a war? Local, state or federal government?”

    Rather than pin yourself down to anything, which you refuse to do, you pull a Dave and merely pretend that trying to figure out what you are talking about is really a dodge and an admission of being wrong. You bleat: I see you’re realizing that things aren’t so simple as your little dichotomy. That’s good. Let’s start with one example:

    At first I thought you were just being Dave, and arguing for the sake of argument, but then I thought of your overall ignorance and realize that you might NOT know when small government becomes big government.

    Small government IN THE UNITED STATES is outlined and codified within the United States Constitution—-a government severely restricted as to size, scope and power. It has specific enumerated duties and cannot legally go beyond those duties. Such a government can, and does, expand in times of war, but only within Constitutional guidelines. For example, a couple of Cabinet positions were temporarily added during World War II.

    Another country’s constitution might define it differently. I don’t presume to pass judgment on the governmental standards of other nations, and I really don’t care what they want to do within their own government. I find it irrelevant to the proper governance of the United States.

    Big government is government which goes beyond the restrictions imposed by the enumerated duties of the Constitution applied to our federal government. It can BE our federal government, if it exceeds its enumerated powers, as our has. It can also be constitutionally allowed, if it is at the state or local level.

    It is identified by the scope of its power—for instance, does it mandate what kind of house one can live in, what kind of toilet one has to have in that house, what kind of light bulbs to burn, how to dispose of its trash and garbage? Does it dictate what kind of car you can drive, or how many miles per gallon that car must get, or what goes into the fuel that powers this car? Does it take upon itself responsibility for the care and maintenance of its citizens?

    To determine a line where “small government” becomes “big government” all you have to do is apply any action to the Constitution, if you are looking at the federal government, but this is not necessary at the state and local levels. A state can have its own welfare system. A county can have its own zoning laws. A local entity such as a homeowners association can determine what color your house has to be and if you can park an RV in the driveway.

    The Left is in favor of big government at the federal level, of government which can dictate all sorts of actions and behaviors and policies which go far beyond the limitations imposed by our Constitution.

    Conservatives believe in the constrained government required by the Constitution, but understand that the actual size of the government is not the same as expanding the scope and power of the government—-that is, more people will be required to meet the demands of the enumerated duties of the federal government as the size of the nation, and its population, grow. This is not the same as expansion of the scope and power of the federal government, but it can be said to be an increase in its SIZE, if one wants to quibble about words.

    This is what made your question so superficial and foolish.

    If it takes X number of people to properly govern the United States with a population of Y, and the population grows to 2Y, X can and must grow as well, but this is not the same as becoming “big government” if the scope and power do not expand beyond the constraints of the enumerated powers and duties.

    Still fretting, you go on with this gem: What about the Civil Rights Act? Was that “small government,” or was that “big government non-Constitutional social engineering” per your definitions?”

    Let’s look at the full title of what we call the Civil Rights Act.
    An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

    Did anything jump out at you? A couple of phrases seemed to stand out when I read this. enforce the constitutional right to vote and to protect constitutional rights
    Therefore, the “Civil Rights Act” did not expand the power and scope of the federal government, but merely served to reinforce the Constitution, much as the 10th Amendment reinforced the intent of the Constitution to grant all the rights and privileges of citizenship to all, with protection of these rights.

    One could quibble that the establishment of the Commission on Civil Rights and the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity did expand the scope of federal powers, and it can also be argued that these Commissions only formalized existing federal power. If you have a position on this, please take it.

    Your goofy take-off on the Canadian government is just, well, goofy. Canada gets to have any kind of government it wants, and it gets to define that government any way it wants. It’s apples and oranges.

    I don’t pay much attention to the government of Canada, so I don’t know how limiting its original Constitution tried to be, or how much of the recent expansions of government power are within the intent of that Constitution or exceed it.

    But it doesn’t matter. Just because I don’t repeat every single word of every single post I ever make, as foundation for what I say, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I clearly and repeatedly state that when I use the word “conservative” I am referring to the 21st Century United States political movement which is dedicated to governing THIS nation according to ITS Constitution.

    Having said that, yes, I still contend that on a spectrum of political ideology, anything which includes central government power and authority over its citizens in the areas of economics or social engineering or welfare or other aspects of daily life IS on the Left end of the spectrum. And I still contend that such control does define “big government”. Canada has its central government paying for health care and dictating what people can and cannot say, both of which pretty much define “big government” for me.

Comments are closed.