We’re Too Nice

“They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” – The Untouchables

I have sat back over the last week watching the expected gloating from liberals, and the anticipated disbelief amongst conservatives and have let it all soak in, in my own attempt to make some sense out of the nonsensical. I still find it hard to believe that once again this country has elected an empty suit, no more qualified to be President this time around than he was last time. I still find it hard to believe that so many voters put issues like abortion and gay marriage above their own financial interests, confirming my belief that we have become a very ignorant, financially illiterate society who will now forsake opportunity and liberty for promised personal security. Americans have truly become dependent and intellectually lazy, and the question is – is it too late to salvage them?

Also over the last week I have witnessed the hand wringing by most conservatives on how we blew such an easy election. How once again, we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. We didn’t lose because Romney is a RINO, as some conservatives call him; we didn’t lose because of the bone headed positions of people like Todd Akin – if that were the case, then someone needs to explain Rep. Andre Carson to me. We lost, because we are too nice. We allow the media and the Democrats to paint us as extreme, without attacking them in the same, if not more aggressive manner. If any party is extreme on abortion – it is the democrats, who support abortion at any place, any time for any reason without any regard to life, mother or father. If any party is extreme on economics – it is the democrats, who support a growing dependency on food stamps, welfare, and a health care insurance program that guarantees the descent of a once great industry into mediocrity, and of whom also support punishing and demonizing success. If any party is extreme on education – it is the Democrats, who would rather poor children languish in failing schools to appease the unions rather than allow parents to send their child to a better school. And these are just a few of the extreme, detrimental positions the Democrats have taken that will ultimately hurt all Americans and of which they don’t ever get called out on. Instead we allow the Democrats to paint our candidate as a murderer, an uncaring rich person who evades taxes and wants to enrich his friends, and of whom wants to ban abortion, implement a theocracy etc, etc. Well it’s time to take the gloves off.

And we start now, by stating unequivocally that Obama is an incompetent, uncaring liar who may be complicit in murder. Obama does not care one bit about the average American otherwise he would tell the truth about the Affordable Care Act which will, and is now resulting in layoffs, an increase in part time employment, a decrease in full time employment, higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, and fewer doctors to provide services. Obama does not care one bit about school children who are obtaining a poor education otherwise he would allow them to attend a better school. Obama does not care one bit about Hurricane Sandy victims otherwise he would not have been golfing while FEMA offices were closed due to incremental weather. Obama does not care one bit about small businesses otherwise he would not advocate raising taxes on the top 3% of small businesses that employee 25% of the labor force. Obama does not care one bit about women otherwise he would insist that the men who so callously impregnate them take responsibility and are held accountable. Obama does not care one bit about younger generations otherwise he would ensure the sustainability of Medicare and Social Security rather than allow the programs to continue along the path to bankruptcy. Obama does not care one bit about illegal immigration otherwise he would have offered a plan to remedy the problem rather than demagogue the issue and use it as a political football. Obama also may very well be complicit in the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens, whom he referred to as a “bump in the road”, and of border guard Brian Terry. Two great Americans, who the media and the Obama regime have so rudely stepped over and swept under the carpet, hoping that everyone will just ignore their callous disregard.

Democrats do not care about the American people, and certainly don’t care about conservatives. They only care about their power over the American people and dispensing of any opposition at any cost. They will continue to prop up useful idiots, like many of our resident liberals, with hateful and condescending talking points to perpetuate that paradigm. They will also continue to under educate our children so that the growing dependency on their benevolence continues. So the next time you hear some liberal, or some Democrat try tell conservatives what to do – tell them to go F**K themselves. And let’s nominate a candidate next time that articulates the conservative positions of a smaller, more efficient, more local government that benefits everyone at that expense of no one, a robust private sector that rewards success and innovation, and of whom is prepared to immediately counter any, and all, Democratic and media attacks with over whelming force. That is the day that conservatives and Americans will once again win.

Advertisements

92 thoughts on “We’re Too Nice

  1. arcman46 November 14, 2012 / 1:51 pm

    Democrats will lie and cheat as much as possible to be able to hold power. The last 2 Presidential elections, we had two men at the top of the ticket that were either too nice or too afraid to confront Obama and his cronies. The seconds on the ticket, Gov. Palin, who I still consider would make an outstanding President and Paul Ryan, would have taken the fight to the opposition if they had been unleashed.

    That said, the Romney campaign, and the GOPe were unwilling to try to unite the Party, continuing the meme that Gov. Palin was the reason that McCain lost. What a load of bullhockey. McCain would have lost by a much larger margin without the Governor, and Romney ended up with almost 3 million less votes than McCain. These votes came from one of 3 places: the evangelical vote, the TEA Party/Palin contingent, and the Ron Paul supporters.

    • irisspirit November 15, 2012 / 9:56 am

      arcman46 you are living in a fantasy world if you do not understand the impact Sarah Palin had on McCain’s run for the presidency. YES – he did lose votes because he did not vet her properly and she was a loose cannon. There is no way she could ever be elected President. This is one of the reasons the GOP has lost the last two elections – no common sense or reality from people such as you. And you will continue to lose if you select people like Allen West, Sarah Palin, Joe Walsh, Todd Akin etc. as candidates. It tells us what the GOP stands for. And the majority of Americans are not buying into your philosophy.

      • ricorun November 16, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        Say what you want about Joe Walsh. Sure, he slurs his words a lot these days, but he’s still a heckofa guitar player. And in his prime he was one of the best. Just listen to this. 🙂

  2. bardolf2 November 14, 2012 / 3:14 pm

    “And we start now, by stating unequivocally that Obama is an incompetent, uncaring liar who may be complicit in murder. ” Clueless the too nice conservative.

    Clueless Cluster still didn’t get a big enough dose of reality from last weeks elections so I doubt anything said in this echo chamber will help. Nevertheless I feel it part of my obligation as a conservative to inform him of alternate viewpoints.

    How the nice Romney lost the election.

    Arcman46 only started with the Romney disconnect from the rest of the GOP. One need only recall that the Romney machine cheated in Iowa and stole the news cycles from the true winner Rick Santorum. It was hardly too nice of all the Romney surrogates who libeled Ron Paul as an anti-semite and racist. It’s not important to the bigbizbranch of the GOP that most African American deaths are from abortion, unnecessary wars and useless prison terms on drug charges all of which are opposed by Ron Paul what is important to the beancounters is an odd article about rioting which proves Paul to be a racist. Of course the big business wing of the party also would suffer from restrictions on the Fed imposed by Paul, so one can see the true motives of the wallstreetrepubs.

    Important fact: MILLIONS of GOP Bush voters stayed home. No amount of whining about the media blahblahblah answers that fundamental point. That’s probably an important question to address if only the Clusters can fathom why insulting the GMB’s of the world might cause a percent of them to stay home.

    How about other voters that Newt Gingrich said the GOP needs now and in the future?

    Well Mr. Moneybags declared that the working poor who pay no taxes are among the 47% of moochers. Susanna Martinez the GOP governor in New Mexico had to distance herself from Romney and said his comments don’t apply to her constituency, i.e. Hispanics. Hispanics don’t like being told that the working poor who don’t pay federal taxes (courtesy of GOP policies btw) are a bunch of lazy bums. Mitt just cost the GOP the Hispanic vote for 2 cycles unless a Latino is on the ticket.

    What about the gender gap? Well Romney wishy-washed his way to a disastrous showing among women. Some thought he was secretly pro-choice and others couldn’t understand why he couldn’t tell the pro-rape-comment wing of the GOP to shut up.

    Some soul searching is needed when a horrible president with HUGE unemployment figures gets re-elected during a slowdown. The POV on the streets outside Arizona about Romney is that he is not a guy who started a make/mine/grow type of business.

    He is seen as a high price, ultra-sophisticated, complex math, loan shark. Sometimes the people he supported like Staples turn out well and he can claim benefactor status. Other times Bain capital had to cut companies up into little pieces to get their share of the pie. That’s from Newt Gingrich not Rachel Maddow.

    By the way, I put a strong pro-life position way above my own economic interest. That’s also part of the problem with the Clueless wing of the GOP.

    • Cluster November 14, 2012 / 3:52 pm

      Stool,

      You are great example of the intellectually lazy. You are well educated, and a seemingly smart guy, but your head is so full of TMZ garbage you can’t think straight. Allow me to help.

      First of all, I don’t care about social conservatives. They have proven themselves to be an unworthy bunch with delicate sensitivities who are too stupid to get out of their own way, They have clearly demonstrated that they will sit out the election if they are the least bit offended, and I am tried of walking on egg shells trying to appease them.

      Secondly, the 47% comment was in reference to a supporters question on what his strategy was to win the election, to which Romney accurately stated that he could probably not count on the support of 47%, and instead would focus on the 53%. That was a good answer to someone who was financially contributing to his campaign and wanted a straight answer.

      Your opinion as to what Romney did in the private sector with Bain just highlights your ignorance on what private equity firms do. First of all, they only show up when invited to come help rescue a company, and their first goal is too salvage the company by repositioning it, streamlining costs, developing new markets, etc. When all else fails, they sell. It happens. Get over it.

      Lastly, you made a good point that we should not eat our own during the primary, and had Romney been as vicious with Obama as he was with Newt, we may have won. I do plan to be that vicious and will only vote for a candidate that employs Chicago type tactics, because that is what it will take. Again, get over it.

      • bardolf2 November 14, 2012 / 6:44 pm

        Firstly without social conservatives the GOP goes nowhere. YOU and the Count and Amy to a lesser extent are the reason the GOP is in danger of extinction. The idea that there is nothing more ideal than a tax cut for the wealthy in the HOPE that they’ll create some jobs in denies all reality. Clueless has abandoned the social conservative vote.

        Secondly the 47% was the same cheap shot Neoconehead had been using for years on B4V. If it was innocent then the GOP governor of New Mexico would not have to distance herself from it. But she did and it isn’t. Now Clueless has lost the social conservative vote AND the Latino vote.

        My opinion of Bain doesn’t matter. It’s Newt Gingrich and Mark Noonan and the rest of the USA whose opinion matters. Your 10th grade lovefest for private equities firms only show that you gobble up whatever propaganda you’ve been served. Even mafiosi think they doing good for the community. Clueless has abandoned the social conservative vote, the Latino vote AND the Catholic vote.

        As for the primary, again it was people right here on B4V who spread vicious lies about Ron Paul. They did so because they don’t like his foreign policy with respect to Israel or his desire to draw down US forces that are breaking the budget.

        Clueless has now abandoned the social conservative vote, the Latino vote, the Catholic vote and properly speaking the fiscal conservative vote.

        LOL and you have the nerve to call GMB rigid.

      • Cluster November 14, 2012 / 7:06 pm

        Stool,

        The majority of Catholics voted FOR Obama. Did you miss that moron? Please stop embarrassing yourself.

      • dbschmidt November 14, 2012 / 8:31 pm

        The idea that there is nothing more ideal than a tax cut for the wealthy in the HOPE that they’ll create some jobs in denies all reality.”

        This is why I am all for the “fiscal cliff” and driving off of it at full speed. After all–it is nothing more than letting the EVIL Bush era tax rate reductions expire. The truly rich will barely notice it. The “rich” you speak off will have to layoff people (stop by http://www.dailyjobcuts.com/ daily from now on) or close up shop entirely. The middle-class will be slammed from all sides, and the poor will finally have skin in the game once again.

        Regulations (not taxes but cost $$$ all the same) have already cost the middle income and below plus Obamacare is the largest tax increase in US history will put an end to just another one of the many lies Obama has told since he started running. He now owns the 4 largest deficits in US history and his “3-1” cuts to tax increase is now 3,4 or 5 -1 tax increases to cuts.

        Enjoy what you asked for and I really hope it gets unbearable to the point of economic malaise. I will be selling out of the stock market before the increase and riding this fiasco out as best I can but I have no worries about my ability to survive–let’s see how well those who voted for this do. My guess–blindsided.

        BTW, please tell me the last time a poor person gave you a job? Wonder if Obama will want to start taxing his buddies in the movie industry and sports at a “reasonable” rate–say 95%? How about a wealth tax in lieu of an income tax? Or as I seen elsewhere, why not just raise the taxes on Democrats as they voted for it.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        dolf, you seem to be advocating a Republican campaign based upon promising people what cannot be delivered. You seem to be suggesting that the GOP run a Dem-inspired campaign, where we would lay out lots of shiny, twinkly goodies to lure voters in, in spite of the fact that none of them have anything to do with the Executive Branch.

        I guess what I am getting at is you are suggesting a campaign that would appeal to YOU.

        No thanks.

        I never liked the 47% approach, and thought it was dumb of Romney to say it. There are much better ways of discussing the fact that the nation is approaching the tipping point where more than half of its people are in the Dependent Class.

        You are quite the snippy little thing, aren’t you? “…..10th grade lovefest for private equities firms …” is petty and bitchy and dumb even for you. As one who has started a business in this economic mess and considered approaching a private equity firm but decided not to because I had another option that did not involve bringing in someone to tell us how to run the business, or take a chunk of the ownership of the business, I have from my personal research learned a lot about how they work, and find that they provide an essential service

        I see you have gone from claiming that Bain “… cut companies up into little pieces to get their share of the pie…” , implying the motive of taking something that belonged to someone else (“to get THEIR share of the pie” as if there would be any pie at all without outside help, which of course would have to be paid for their expertise and risk) to just sniping at private equity firms in general.

        The utter cluelessness that for some reason thinks sound, successful businesses approach private equity or venture capital firms, and that they would be viable and successful businesses without the input of business expertise and capital they ASK for because they NEED it, is just amazing.

      • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 9:37 pm

        dolf, you really ought to be ashamed of spouting the nonsense of “tax cut for the wealthy”. That canard ought to be reserved for the completely stupid, whereas you are not only not completely stupid, you actually have some skills in mathematics, which would ordinarily imply a certain aptitude for logical thought.

        But tell us, dolfie, just how much do those wascawwy wepubwicans want to CUT taxes for those eeeeevil “wealthy”? How much lower than they are now do conservatives want to go, and have they given any reason for targeting only the “wealthy” for these extravagant freebies?

        Here is a basic calculation, stripped down to its simplest form in hopes you can follow along.

        Say I have a business which I did build. You probably don’t understand this, but I did not do it just for fun. Yes, I enjoy the challenge, and yes, I love what I do, but I will not do it for free.

        So I have an idea in the back of my mind about how hard I am willing to work, and what I am willing to risk, and this is based upon expectation of return. Will I work 80 hours a week, invest my savings and borrow against my house and risk losing it all, have sleepless nights worrying about all the details of starting and running a business, for $20,000 a year? No. For that I will work for someone else, put in 35-40 hours a week without any brain damage, get my paid vacation, and let someone else go through the process.

        Will I do it for $200,000 a year? Yes, probably

        OK, so now I am told that I will be penalized for my success, and have an extra 10-15% of my hard earned income taken from me, at about the time I am considering expanding. I might be willing to take on more risk, more work, more responsibility, and hire a couple more people, to make another $100,000 a year, if I am taxed about a quarter of that. Up the tax to closer to half, and the equation no longer works for me. I am already working as hard as I ever did, for less money, and the ratio of work to reward for taking on even more is just not good enough.

        So I don’t hire those two extra people.

        And pretty soon I start to think, gee, if I made less, under the current threshold for “wealthy”, I could have less responsibility, play more golf, get a boat, and net much the same as I net now related to how much I work. So I cut loose a couple of people who already work for me.

        In the meantime, I am working the system for everything I can, and doing whatever I can to avoid paying taxes, because I resent the punitive tax system.

        Flip the coin. I make my $200,000 and I think a quarter of that is a fair tax. I can look at the extra work of expanding and for $75,000 net it is worth it, so I hire a couple more people. The end result is that I am also employing two more people, supporting two more families, putting two more families onto the tax rolls, and the two current employees who were cut under Scenario One still have their jobs.

        I am sure you will sneer at this, but it is a simplified example of the chilling effect of increasing taxes on the Employer Class.

        Increase corporate taxes, and the business will just pass those taxes on to its customers, because the cost of a product is, basically, the cost of doing business plus profit. A tax is the cost of doing business. When the cost of raw materials goes up, the cost of the product goes up. When the cost of transportation goes up, the cost of the product goes up. When the cost of labor goes up, the cost of the product goes up. And when taxes go up, the cost of the product goes up.

        When the cost of the product goes up, the middle and lower classes take the hit more than those damned “wealthy” who were targeted.

        And then, surprise surprise, they start buying according to cost alone, which means buying goods from China, South America, Thailand……..

        Which of course does wonders for American business.

        And so it goes…………

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 14, 2012 / 11:34 pm

        “The idea that there is nothing more ideal than a tax cut for the wealthy in the HOPE that they’ll create some jobs in denies all reality.”

        Indeed it does–and when the latest report showing that top-bracket tax cuts do not, in fact, spur job creation (despite endless conservative claims to the contrary) was created, what did conservatives do? They demanded that the report be withdrawn. It’s perfect inside-the-bubble behavior: When reality proves the accepted reality inside the bubble to be wrong, you double down on the falsehood and try to keep reality out.

        Cluster is exhibiting similar behavior with his post. Clearly, Obama is not an “empty suit,” just as it’s an obvious falsehood to claim that “Democrats do not care about the American people” or that “Obama does not care one bit” about everything from school children to hurricane victims. But to Cluster, these things have to be true because everybody inside the bubble with him believes them. Never once does it occur to him that outside the bubble, out here in reality, those cherished “truths” are false, plain and simple. And as long as that dynamic continues, he will continue to be flabbergasted by reality.

      • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 8:25 am

        Thank you so much for chiming in truthshallsetyoufree, you are another good example of the mindlessness that currently occupies liberal corridors these days. Before I impale you on your vacuous post, allow me to point out the fact that you did not refute one point I made about the empty suit in the White House, other than to childishly claim that he does care. Prove it a**hole, otherwise go away. Demonstrate to me how the POS cares about women when after four years of his rudderless leadership more women are unemployed today than ever before, and he doesn’t do one thing to hold the men in their lives accountable, other to than to give them money to kill their unborn child. He is a first class loser.

        Re: your link to an article that you clearly haven’t thought through. First of all, the link refers to the “Bush Tax Cuts” when in reality, these are now Obama’s tax cuts in that Obama extended them in December 2010, claiming that raising taxes in the middle of a recession was the wrong thing to do, which again he now evidently thinks differently on. Secondly, the report cites the findings of a one year period which is insufficient, and the report also completely disregards the dramatic economic growth in the 80’s, and the 00’s following marginal rate reductions. It is really simple logic to understand that the more money you leave in the private sector, the more investment and job growth will ensue. It’s not a difficult equation but somehow it escapes the steel trap minds of liberals.

        Now let’s compare your steadfast belief in this report to that of global warming, which explains a lot. In this report, we have suspect conclusions derived from insufficient data, and since the conclusions give the government reason to extract more money from people you detest, it is considered to be irrefutable. Have you ever thought of that? Despite concrete evidence that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth, and concrete evidence that global temperatures have cooled over the last decade, liberals simply won’t let go of big government dreams. A big government that they hope and dream will protect them from the evils of life. It’s a juvenile fantasy.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

        Despite concrete evidence that Obama’s policies are failures, hurting more Americans than any other administration, liberals simply won’t believe it.

        Liberal thought is simply no match for conservative common sense.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:58 pm

        truthie, my questions to mitche and Velma and the Canadian Observer also apply to you.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 15, 2012 / 11:29 pm

        “It’s a juvenile fantasy”

        The juvenile fantasy is the one you outlined in your post–the one where “Democrats don’t care about the American people” and all that jazz. And when challenged on that fantasy, you lash out, and you reaffirm your belief in falsehoods. You’re obviously still smarting from the election results (not exactly a man of your word, either, are you? What happened to quitting blogging and dedicating yourself to being the biggest mooch possible?), but retreating into the bubble will only make things worse for you.

        For starters, if you’d done some research instead of mindlessly pasting a link you’d been forwarded, you would’ve saved yourself some embarrassment. But inside the bubble, conformity is king–everybody inside the bubble believes, contrary to science, that climate change is false, and that’s good enough for you.

        Also, you need to stop lying, as you did here:

        “the report cites the findings of a one year period which is insufficient”

        Again, a bit of research would’ve saved you some embarrassment here. Hell, the article I linked to even gives you a link to the study itself. That study’s title? “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945.” Since 1945, Cluster. And the study concludes that “there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.” 65 years, not one year.

        “the report also completely disregards the dramatic economic growth in the 80′s, and the 00′s following marginal rate reductions”

        Well, I just demonstrated that to be untrue, but beyond that, what about the massive economic growth that followed Clinton’s tax increases? What about the booming economy in the 1950s, when the top marginal rate was 90 percent? If you believe your quote above, you must also believe that these examples prove the efficacy of higher top marginal rates.

        Or you could simply acknowledge that study after study has shown that top-bracket tax cuts don’t even pay for themselves, much less “spur economic growth,” and engage the world of facts. But to do so means you’ll have to leave the bubble–and all its comforting fictions–behind.

        This “conservative common sense” you mention is clearly nothing more than a description of the alternate reality inside the bubble. Seeing as how it fails when brought into the real world, it’s really just a demonstration that what are considered facts inside the bubble are actually falsehoods, and that what is considered thought inside the bubble is just rote recitation of disproven talking points.

        If you want to continue to hide out inside the bubble to insulate yourself from reality, by all means do so. But if you’re going to do that, you had better get used to the feeling of emphatic rejection you felt on election night because it’s going to become a common occurrence for you.

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 2:42 am

        truthie, you really do intend to continue howling, screeching, and in general having your weird little Lefty temper tantrums, don’t you? We have established that the only reason you post here is because of your need to hate, to identify an Other on which to focus your hate, and then to attack that Other with all the spite and malice you can muster.

      • Retired Spook November 16, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        Well, I just demonstrated that to be untrue, but beyond that, what about the massive economic growth that followed Clinton’s tax increases?

        Actually, Truthie, there wasn’t any massive economic growth during the 3 years after Clinton’s 1993 tax increases. He had 4 months in his first term when economic growth exceeded 2.5%. And, in the last couple months before the Gingrich Congress took over, GDP growth had all but come to a halt. The real sustained growth came after Republicans got hold of the purse strings and dragged Clinton kicking and screaming to a balanced budget, welfare reform and a 30% cut in the capital gains tax.

      • ricorun November 16, 2012 / 11:54 pm

        I’m beginning to see some REAL cracks in the armor here. First dolf said what he said, then Cluster said what he said. Then various others piled on.

        Dolf said too much to try to pick out a single, pithy quote, so you’ll have to read above. But the gist I got from it is that the GOP is in the process of eating their own in an effort to “purify” the party along lines that, frankly, make no logical sense at all. In the case of Cluster, here’s my take-home message, offered in his own words: First of all, I don’t care about social conservatives. They have proven themselves to be an unworthy bunch with delicate sensitivities who are too stupid to get out of their own way, They have clearly demonstrated that they will sit out the election if they are the least bit offended, and I am [tired] of walking on egg shells trying to appease them.

        Suddenly it appears there are lots of opportunities for discussion where none appeared before. Moreover, I think the BIGGEST take-home message is the growing realization that there IS NO IDEOLOGICAL DICHOTOMY in most peoples’ minds. Said in another way, it does not make any sort of logical sense to try to take a political ideology based on one set of logical assumptions and shoe-horn into it a moral ideology with a completely different set of assumptions, and call it consistent. Or, said in yet another way, if hard-liners in the GOP want to “purify” the party, what do they mean exactly?

      • Amazona November 17, 2012 / 8:08 am

        rico, you say: *emphasis mine) “Moreover, I think the BIGGEST take-home message is the growing realization that there IS NO IDEOLOGICAL DICHOTOMY in most peoples’ minds.”

        It might be a “growing realization” for you, but many of us have been quite aware for some time that in most people’s minds there is not even the awareness that there are two basic political systems and that they are actually voting for one or the other, when they think they are just voting on “issues”.

        This has been recognized, on the Right, as the greatest problem the GOP faces.

        “Said in another way, it does not make any sort of logical sense to try to take a political ideology based on one set of logical assumptions and shoe-horn into it a moral ideology with a completely different set of assumptions, and call it consistent. ”

        Well, the “moral ideology” not only does not necessarily have a “completely different set of assumptions”, it is often quite consistent with the political ideology—it is just not relevant and should not be made an integral, inseparable, part of the political ideology of either Constitutional governance or Leftist, big-government, governance.

        “Or, said in yet another way, if hard-liners in the GOP want to “purify” the party, what do they mean exactly?”

        First I guess you would have to define “hard-liners in the GOP”. I don’t know if Cluster and I qualify, as we self-identify as Conservatives who vote for Republicans because they are closer to the Conservative ideal than Dems, and more likely to be brought back to a commitment to Constitutional governance.

        As for me, I have no interest in anything so silly as a desire to “purify the party”. I only want to clarify the message.

        We became the “Big Tent” party when we were the party of small federal government, low taxes, and a system which encouraged economic growth. It was a big tent because under that large umbrella there was room for different religions, ethnicities, income strata, personal philosophies, etc. It was a Big vs Small, Right vs Left, party, and within it was plenty of room for every race and religion, Hindu lesbians, hippies, professors, transgendered Eskimos, etc. You were a Republican because you thought the Constitution was the best way to govern the nation, and that “issues” were to be resolved at the state and local levels, or were private and personal.

        The party started to redefine itself, concentrating on social and personal issues, and losing track of the essential characteristic that had once defined it—its representation of a specific political model. When this happened, the party did not exclude people, but its focus on so many very specific social and personal issues set up a situation which was very cleverly demagogued by the Left as meaning the party was exclusive, narrow minded, open to just a few and dismissive of the rest.

        But the core of the party is still there, and I think it needs to be made the focal point. We need to focus on that, and clarify the message. If we can do that, a lot of other things will fall into place.

        One small example: If we had done this effectively in 2012, we would have knocked out the silly claim of the Left that Romney wanted to take birth control away from women without even having to address that specific issue, merely by concentrating on the message that the scope and therefore the power of the federal government is severely limited and that aside from a very few important duties mandated to the feds by the Constitution everything else has to be decided at the state and local level.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 6:16 pm

        Amazona: It might be a “growing realization” for you, but many of us have been quite aware for some time that in most people’s minds there is not even the awareness that there are two basic political systems and that they are actually voting for one or the other, when they think they are just voting on “issues”.

        It probably comes as no surprise to you that I reject your premise (again): people are NOT voting in terms of “two basic political systems”. How could they? To do so they would have to ignore all the other baggage that each party brings to the table. As much as you would like it to be so (and in fact, I don’t think you really do), the GOP is not JUST the party of constructionist constitutionalism. That’s just one leg of their current three-legged stool. And frankly, I have a problem with just that one leg, when taken to extremes. Then again, I have problems with extremes of all sorts. At any rate, you CANNOT claim that people are too stupid to recognize a dichotomy when none exists in the first place. That’s a figment of YOUR fantasy, not theirs.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        Amazona: Well, the “moral ideology” not only does not necessarily have a “completely different set of assumptions”, it is often quite consistent with the political ideology—it is just not relevant and should not be made an integral, inseparable, part of the political ideology of either Constitutional governance or Leftist, big-government, governance.

        Well, I didn’t say the “moral ideology” element was completely orthogonal, just that it required “a completely different set of assumptions”. Anyway, good luck trying to dissociate the “moral conservative” leg of the stool from the “fiscal conservative” leg. Then of course there is the “defense conservative” leg. What do you do with them? Obviously national defense fits under the meme of “constitutional constructionism”, but the defense establishment is BY FAR the single largest recipient of federal expenditures. And as such it causes considerable problems for true “fiscal conservatives”.

        I’m thinking about all these things myself, trying to come up with a way to most efficiently deal with all the various competing issues. I don’t want the US to become a socialist democracy along the European model. But likewise, I don’t want the US to become a corporate dominated pseudo-democracy along the lines of the South American model, either. But one thing I’m quite sure of is… approaching the various issues from some sort of pure, coherent, singular ideological viewpoint is not the way to go about it. That requires a perception of the world as if it was conceived in black and white, and it clearly isn’t. Rather, the world is quite clearly technicolor.

        One idea I’ve been tossing around for a while is this: Big Business should be incorporated into the system of checks and balances currently employed to distribute political power among the three existing branches. My thinking is propelled by these ideas: (1) We are part of a global community, and cannot dictate terms to other countries. Thus, multi-national Big Business cannot be prevented, only restrained; (2) shrinking government too dramatically, thus limiting the ability of government to regulate Big Business, only increases the power of Big Business to control our lives. At least Big Government is popularly elected, Big Business is not; (3) The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court has further entrenched Big Business (along with Big Unions) as a power to influence the political process; (4) If that influence is left unchecked, we almost certainly will become a Fascist nation. And that, I think, is something we all should consider.

        Mark Noonan, in particular, might recognize these ideas as the kernel of a “21st Century” Distributist model. If he does, I don’t have any problem with such a characterization.

      • thetruthshallsetyoufree2012 November 19, 2012 / 10:59 pm

        “you CANNOT claim that people are too stupid to recognize a dichotomy when none exists in the first place. That’s a figment of YOUR fantasy, not theirs.”

        Perfectly said, Ricorun.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 11:04 pm

        Me: Obviously national defense fits under the meme of “constitutional constructionism”, but the defense establishment is BY FAR the single largest recipient of federal expenditures.

        Oops! I meant to say “Obviously national defense fits under the meme of “constitutional constructionism”, but the defense establishment is BY FAR the single largest recipient of federal discretionary expenditures.”

        I apologize for the oversight.

    • Amazona November 14, 2012 / 4:03 pm

      dolf, I am sure that mitche and the clown appreciate you keeping the insanity level nice and high while they are gone.

      Are you stating that getting a lot of votes is proof that someone is competent, honest and not complicit in murder? Oh my goodness, you’re not taking the “consensus” approach to science and moving over to politics, are you? You know, declaring that if someone fools enough people that changes the reality of who he is and what he does?

      Are you saying that there is a bigbizbranch of the GOP that supports the killing of inconvenient children? Please back up this libel, as I find it quite distasteful.

      Not beneath you, just distasteful.

      Are you actually claiming that there IS a “… pro-rape-comment wing of the GOP ..” ? Really? An actual wing of the party supports a comment that is pro-rape? What pro-rape comment? Obviously you have to start with a comment that IS “pro-rape” and then you have to prove that a “… pro-rape-comment wing of the GOP …” actually exists.

      Otherwise this is just a particularly vile lie.

      Oh, and love your “Mr. Moneybags” sneer. So classy. Yet we can see where and how this Mr. Moneybags made his money while the shenanigans that have enriched people like Reid and Pelosi are swept under the rug.

      ” Other times Bain capital had to cut companies up into little pieces to get their share of the pie. ”

      Oh, so you are asserting that the only reason big companies have been cut up “into little pieces” was to get a bigger “share of the pie”. That’s not only vicious, it is stupid, and proof of your absolute lack of understanding of how businesses work. One would think that a Fulbright scholar would be able to understand that when a business has expanded beyond its ability to function properly, whether due to its management, the economy, the market, etc., the parts of the business that are dragging it down, taking money out of the company instead of bringing it in, have to go. Just how would YOU save a company with several unprofitable branches that were sucking the life out of the whole company and dragging even the profitable parts of it into failure and bankruptcy? Would your brilliant analytical business mind declare that it is “one for all and all for one” and that the different branches, profitable and not profitable, would all go down together?

      I guess it’s a good thing that you are a salaried teacher and not actually one who has to make decisions like that, if you can’t even grasp the principle.

      I wonder how you feel about pruning rose bushes, too—-after all, “cutting them up into little pieces” so the dead and dying and unnecessary branches don’t kill off the whole plant might be distasteful to you, as well, prompting snide commentary on horticultural decisions.

      I am strongly and ardently anti abortion. And you know what? I can’t find a single thing that, to my thinking, puts this issue in the purview of the Executive Branch. Not if we follow our rule of law, anyway. So why is it dragged into presidential level politics? What can a president DO about abortion? Legally, that is.

      The closest a president can come to affecting abortion law is to appoint constructionist Supreme Court justices who overturn Roe v Wade not on any grounds relating to the morality of abortion but just on the obvious grounds that it is a violation of state sovereignty. And then the issue would reside in the states, where it belongs.

      If it were to rise to the level of a Constitutional Amendment, that would originate in the states, as well.

      • dougq November 14, 2012 / 9:18 pm

        Having had dealings with Bain, I can assure you that in many instances ‘dolf is correct. Selling off companies in pieces is a method to get a quick guaranteed return for Bain, even if that company would thrive otherwise. Still, Bain really didn’t have anything to do with the election, I don’t think Romney was going to get any OWS votes anyhow.

        Obama and Romney both managed to get some abortion beliefs put into their healthcare laws, I do think the President has more influence when it comes to murdering human children than just Supreme Court nominees. (exchanging goodies for funding for planned parenthood, etc.)

        The problem we have right now is that suburban republicans are up in arms about the social conservatives, they want them muzzled or out of the party. Suburban republicans also want the most moderate candidates nominated because they have a fear of losing if they don’t.

        It’s really pretty simple, when a GOP candidate has acted or is running on something other than what the conservatives stand for, then they are more likely to lose. The Tea Party folks actually did relatively well this election, far more so than the establishment nominees. Now the establishment and it’s supporters are trying to place the blame on the social conservatives instead of looking at themselves and realizing they are the problem.

        Our establishment is being run by folks who are eager to cut a leg off of a three legged stool because someone told them it looks better without it. In the case of Romney, they decided to cut all three legs off in exchange for putting a soft and pretty cushion on it. Clean house.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:32 pm

        doug, if a company would “thrive anyway” why would it go to Bain in the first place?

      • dougq November 15, 2012 / 12:48 pm

        Amazona, in our case we had a two year blip where the control of the company was wrested away and the decision makers were looking to retire and wanted a quick payout so they were looking to sell the entire business and hired B as a consultant. When push came to shove the rest of the owners slapped them down in a vote and threw them out. They wanted to break us up and sell us off for pennies on the dollar, just a few years later we’re worth 10 times what B’s ‘value’ on us was.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 1:02 pm

        dolf, I know why you are here.

        Being a math whiz from childhood and being moderately successful in a field which so many find incomprehensible and therefore impressive, you are used to thinking of yourself as intellectually superior, and you come here to flaunt this imagined intellect—unaware as you are that it is limited to mathematics.

        Your posts focus less on mindless and wholly predictable attacks, and more on free-form narcissism in which you, like rico, expound endlessly in what you seem to think is spotlighting your vast intellect.

        You are annoying, but harmless, not toxic like the PL trolls who come here with the intent of disrupting and maybe even destroying the blog, while indulging in some truly creepy pathologies.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 1:11 pm

        doug—-exactly. You thought Bain had a solution to your problem, you approached them for help with the problem, you disagreed with their approach, and you chose not to work with them.

        That is how the system works.

        Bain did not prowl the business world like a predator, looking for the weak to pounce on and destroy. Bain had a business plan set up to make BAIN a profitable company, and within this business plan were evidently templates for which businesses they thought would be more profitable being developed and which would do more for their bottom line by being dismantled.

        People who had business problems went to Bain, and still do, hoping for help with those problems. They are told what Bain is willing to do, and then they can choose whether or not they are willing to go along with the Bain plan

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        dolf, you say: “The problem we have right now is that suburban republicans are up in arms about the social conservatives, they want them muzzled or out of the party. Suburban republicans also want the most moderate candidates nominated because they have a fear of losing if they don’t.”

        Perhaps you have simply misunderstood these “suburban Republicans” and don’t understand that THEY understand the most important thing, the foundation upon which EVERYTHING else rests, is a mandate to run the nation according to its Constitutional laws.

        Perhaps you have made the mistake of following the Dem template of cluttering up basic political philosophy with a lot emotion-driven “social issues” and not understanding the difference.

        You make two typically sweeping generalizations. One is that these “suburban Republicans” want what you call “social conservatives” MUZZLED OR OUT OF THE PARTY. Perhaps you might ponder a bit on the idea that many “social conservatives” also vote for Dems, because of the conflation of some issues with actual politics—-that they would vote for a Constitutional model of government which keeps power and authority at the state level and then work on their “social issues” locally, if given the choice.

        I suggest that the more pragmatic Republicans, no matter where they live, understand that social issues and economic issues and any other kinds of issues are moot, if we don’t have a clear understanding of and commitment to a specific kind of government which adheres to the basic Constitutional model of limited federal size scope and authority and retention of most political power at the state and local level.

        I suggest that THEY understand that none of these “social issues” are even, under Constitutional law, supposed to be addressed at the federal level.

        The other sweeping pronouncement is that “… Suburban republicans also want the most moderate candidates nominated ”

        Hmmmm. Define “moderate” in political terms. Because to “moderate” a political philosophy would mean to dilute it. So just how would that work? A “moderate” would only follow some of the laws laid out by our Constitution? Or follow all of them but only on alternate days?

        No,dolf, you have fallen into the trap so cleverly laid by the demagogues of the Left, and gotten simple political philosophy, of how best to govern the nation, all muddled up with these “issues” which are pretty much irrelevant at the federal level but sure do a bang-up job of splitting people apart even when they would be in agreement on the actual political choices if these were what were presented to them.

      • ricorun November 19, 2012 / 10:48 pm

        Amazona (speaking to Dolf): Your posts focus less on mindless and wholly predictable attacks, and more on free-form narcissism in which you, like rico, expound endlessly in what you seem to think is spotlighting your vast intellect.

        I don’t know dolf and certainly can’t speak for him. But speaking for myself, what a pile! In all the years I’ve been posting on this site I’ve tried very hard to spotlight my ideas, not myself. And I certainly have never appealed to any sort of personal authority as a rationale to influence anyone to think like I do. All I do is present facts, figures, and logic, and try to tie them all together (I said try — I’m rarely successful, lol!). Yet you think I exhibit some kind of “free-form narcissism”. If that is what you perceive, then I suspect it has much more to do with what you have tried to impose upon me through your relentless personal attacks as opposed to anything I have actually said. If you beg to differ, please provide evidence. As far as spotlighting “my vast intellect” goes, I doubt that’s the case. And I certainly don’t try to spotlight whatever intellect I have. But I don’t try to hide it, either. What am I supposed to do, try to “dumb down” when talking to you guys? That would be demeaning, and I won’t do it. I will continue to talk like I talk in every other venue. Pretty much, anyway, lol!

        So, Amazona, go ahead and continue with your ad-hominem attacks if you so desire. Likewise, I will continue to point out the ones that are particularly offensive. But, as always, I will not participate in the absurdity by reciprocating. Rather, I will continue to suggest that you should let your ideas, rather than your vitriole, reign supreme.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        Velma, why are you here?

        How would you feel about someone marching into your home to tell you what crappy tastes you have, how ugly your curtains are, how tacky your furniture is, and what a moron you must be for choosing to have a house like this? How would you feel about being followed around by someone who ridicules your clothes, your shoes, your hair, the way you walk?

        You would think that person to be the most low-class, rude, crude, and creepy person imaginable, and would wonder what kind of mental illness would prompt someone to do something this nuts. You would wonder what kind of pathology would prompt anyone to spend all this time and energy looking for people to attack and insult.

        Yet this is what you do here, every time you stomp into the blog. You attack, you insult,and you tell us how we should run our party.

        Why? What is it about you that you get such gratification from being rude, clueless, low-class, and attracting such scorn and disdain? Is your pathology one of desperate need to be reviled and rejected? Is that what gets you off? Are you using us to feed your masochistic needs? Do you even realize what this says about you?

      • irisspirit November 15, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        amazona woman, you continue to be an idiot. For someone who constantly puts down everyone who does not follow your “philosophy” you NEVER fail to denigrate those with whom you disagree. Do you have any female friends? Doubtful. I never marched into you home and criticize your taste – so if this is your home you are truly pathetic. You are a fine one to be calling anyone else rude, clueless and low-class. Those actions right there tells the whole story. Why is it that you see everyone else as being wrong, as being nasty suggesting they have a mental illness but fail to see those qualities in yourself? I merely pointed out that one of the more promising GOP leaders for the future of your party has stated several truths about the GOP and conservatives and you accuse me of being rude, clueless and low class. I am none of those things and you saying such things does not make it so. You just cannot seem to get a grasp on reality and what the real world is all about. If you had children or grandchildren you might have a more realistic view of the world and how people really think and feel about the conservative views. As it is, you only have yourself to worry about and it is all “Me, Me, Me” with you. You are on sister to other women that is for sure.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 8:11 pm

        Velma, thank you for participating in my little quiz, and thank you for illustrating my theory that the only reason you and your kind come to this blog is to wallow in your own hatefulness.

        You seem to think not giving a reason for barging uninvited to a conservative blog to howl and shriek about your hateful attitude toward conservatives is going to go unnoticed if you throw a big enough name-calling temper tantrum.

        Little hint, here Vel—-you are even less convincing as a shrink, inventing silly reasons for what you claim are my characteristics, than you are as a lawyer, and that’s saying a LOT.

        No, Velma, you have made a tacit admission that the only reason you come here is to attack conservatives. which of course you have made clear over the years anyway. I just thought I would give you a chance to come up with some reason other than spite and malice, and of course you didn’t even try.

        I do accuse you of being rude, crude and low class, and you are all of these things—and on top of it you’re vitriolic and a serial liar and abjectly politically ignorant and historically illiterate. And dumb as a box of hair—probably swept up from the floor of your legal alma mater, Bertha’s School of Hair Design and Law. Evidently you fear that we might forget just what a nasty piece of work you are, so you make sure to scuttle on back here to remind us.

        As for not having friends, evidently you are too toxic and insane for even the Lefty blogs, so you have to come here. And your insensitivity to scorn and disdain tell us you are quite used to this, so it doesn’t even faze you any more. I have no trouble believing that.

        I gave you a chance to give us a reason for posting here other than a sick pathological need to spray your hostility around, and you can’t. What DID you do? Sprayed some more hostility around. You are too funny, if a sad sick sack-of-hate persona can be called “funny”.

        And no, I am still not going to bite you. I’d rather lick a toad, though with my eyes closed I could probably not tell the difference.

      • Amazona November 17, 2012 / 7:40 am

        “And no, I am still not going to bite you. I’d rather lick a toad, though with my eyes closed I could probably not tell the difference.”

        It was recently pointed out to me that with my eyes OPEN I could probably not tell the difference……….

    • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:34 pm

      baldork

      That’s also part of the problem with the Clueless wing of the GOP.

      Cluster is NOT a “wing” of the GOP, and neither an I.
      I am one of MILLIONS who belong to the GOP after the donks became islam light, and CPUSA.
      Cluster may well be a GOP affiliate, or an inde who feels the GOP is more in line with his beliefs than the commies.
      However Cluster is NOT a “wing” of anything, but his own beliefs.

      nice try though…..

      • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 3:51 pm

        Well said Neocon

  3. Retired Spook November 14, 2012 / 5:23 pm

    The problem isn’t that we’re too nice, it’s that we don’t do nasty well, because, in general, Republicans are held to a higher moral standard than are Democrats. I recall, during a presidential debate in 1996, Bob Dole decided to go on the attack against Clinton. Clinton’s response that “no personal attack ever fed a hungry child” destroyed Dole, and his campaign never recovered. The problem is that people expect Democrats to be nasty, and they seldom disappoint, but people also expect Republicans to be nice and take the high road, and they usually do. And then, of course, you’ve got the MSM which gives nasty attacks from Democrats cover and destroys Republicans who try to fight fire with fire. The comments from a top Obama campaign staffer that Romney may have committed a felony, and the ad that accused Romney of being responsible for a steelworker’s wife’s cancer death are prime examples. No outrage in the press whatsoever.

    • Cluster November 14, 2012 / 6:49 pm

      Point taken Spook, but unless we learn how to fight, we are going to continue to lose. Democrats have learned via Axlerod that Chicago style politics wins, and they will not abandon those tactics anytime soon, so learning how to be nasty in a crafty way is imperative for us to combat this vile opponent.

      Take for example the Duran-Leonard fights. In the first fight, the “Brawl in Montreal”, Leonard tried to slug it out with Duran. Fighting Duran’s fight of a flat footed, slug fest and Leonard lost. In the second fight, the “No Mas” fight, Sugar Ray Leonard fought his own fight, employing every arsenal at his disposal and ended the fight quickly. Duran realized that he was no match for the more talented better equipped Leonard. We need that same confidence. We can’t allow them to dictate the fight. We need to employ every arsenal available, including using Dennis Miller’s humor to humiliate them, using Mia Love and Condi Rice to shame them, and using John Sununu to attack them. There is so much we can do, but we instead sit complacently and hope that by being congenial, they will like us. That dog don’t hunt.

  4. dougq November 14, 2012 / 6:42 pm

    It is not that we’re too nice, it is that we nominate those who don’t do a good job of differentiating. I got through the first paragraph and figured it was Cluster’s post and sure enough it was.

    It was because Romney was a RINO that we lost, it’s as simple as that. It was because McCain was a RINO that we lost, it’s as simple as that.

    We Anyone But Romney voters were absolutely correct during the nomination. Nominate the statist Romneycare and there would be more conservatives sitting out the general election than he would gain in independents. It looks like that is the case as he did much better than McCain did with independents but too many of us just didn’t want to turn out and vote for him.

    We lost because the GOP establishment and their talking heads in the media forced out better options that would not have held back and would have made the case for conservatism. As long as the GOP establishment, the Ann Coulters, Karl Roves, and the like snug themselves up with the moderates and push them onto us we will continue to have weak conservative turnout and not be able to gain enough from the moderates to make up the difference.

    Sarah Palin and Rand Paul in 2016 – that is where the GOP needs to be. Unfortunately it will likely be the squish combo of Christie and Jindal.

    Giminy, they gave us a ticket with a VP candidate who didn’t want to have the budget balanced for decades and a Pres. candidate who believes the government can force you to spend tens of thousands of dollars on health insurance.

    It’s like an alternate reality, we nominated folks that make FDR look like a republican.

    • Cluster November 14, 2012 / 7:04 pm

      Sarah Palin won’t even win one state Doug. Christie proved to me that he likes the media attention too much, and Jindal is best suited for a governorship. I don’t mind Rand Paul, but we are a long way out, and I want to see some of our young talented bench prove to me that they have some fight in them. I have always liked Rubio and hope he takes the mantle and runs with it.

      In terms of RINO, please spare me. I want to see a conservative, not a republican. I want to see someone articulate conservative constitutional principles, and like it or not, states have the right to enact state run government health care if the citizens want it. That’s constitutional. In fact, most states do have some level of government health care.

      Sarah Palin??? Lord help us.

      • dougq November 14, 2012 / 7:30 pm

        States have the right to seize your house and give it to a shopping mall builder as well. States have the right to put a 99% tax on your income (some states)….just because it’s constitutional doesn’t mean you have to have a governor that supports those actions, and to have that governor be the GOP nominee is worth vomiting over. Rand Paul and Palin would be a formable pair. Rubio is squishy as well, the only saving factor about him is if you think we have to pander to Hispanic voters. I’m done pandering. Stick to your morals, stick to your principles. Show you are steadfast and you don’t need to pander.

      • Cluster November 14, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        Who said anything about pandering? I am talking about taking constitutional conservative positions and fighting for them. Combating lies and distortions in a forceful, comedic, and smart way, and convincing Hispanics, blacks and single women that we are the party they should support, because conservatism helps everyone, at the expense of NO ONE.

      • mitchethekid November 14, 2012 / 11:54 pm

        Sarah Palin. The lord has helped us.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        mitche, you are next in line for the Question of the Day:

        WHY ARE YOU HERE?

        The questions I posed to the Canadian Observer sum up my question, so I will repeat them here.

        It is not to discuss politics, because you don’t discuss politics. On the contrary, you scuttle away from any actual political discourse, back to your comfort zone of personal attacks.

        So why are you here? What is it about you that makes being hostile and vicious and snide to strangers such an overwhelming need?

        Are you even aware that normal people do not spend time and energy seeing out places where different people congregate, for the purpose of attacking them? Are you truly oblivious to the pathology of such an obsession?

        Why do you think Matt and Mark started this blog? Do you really think it was to create a freak magnet, to draw in people like you and Velma and the freaky clown and the oddly named truthie, et al? Do you really think their goal was to have a litter box for Pseudo Liberal mental droppings?

        Evidently you do. Or you know better but you don’t care, because the blog is here and you get off on using it that way.

        So tell us—what is the attraction of being nothing more than a mindless attack engine, fueled by hatred, with the goal of being a blog speed bump?

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:15 pm

        I know (sadly) many people who did not like Ubama, but could not bring themselves to vote for a Morman…..who knows how much this factored into the (stolen) election.

    • 01canadianobserver November 15, 2012 / 8:57 am

      “Rand Paul and Palin would be a formidable pair.”

      Amen brother, I will witness for that congregation.
      ————————————————————

      Don’t know about Paul but Palin has proven herself to be a quitter (half-term Governor) and would have a devil of a time putting in the hard work and long hours that would be required of her. No, it’s much easier to appear from time to time on a friendly network and to post vitriolic rants on her Facebook page. Doubt very much that she would want to be thoroughly vetted this time either; just too many skeletons in her closet. If you’ve seen recent pictures of her, it obvious that losing to the President in 2008 has been eating her up and has taken a rather tragic toll on her physical appearance.

      Why would Paul even want his name to be associated with a loser and international laughing stock anyway?

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 12:54 pm

        CO, I will ask you the same question I just posed to Velma.

        Why are you here?

        It is not to discuss politics, because you don’t discuss politics. On the contrary, you scuttle away from any actual political discourse, back to your comfort zone of personal attacks.

        So why are you here? What is it about you that makes being hostile and vicious and snide to strangers such an overwhelming need?

        Are you even aware that normal people do not spend time and energy seeing out places where different people congregate, for the purpose of attacking them? Are you truly oblivious to the pathology of such an obsession?

        Why do you think Matt and Mark started this blog? Do you really think it was to create a freak magnet, to draw in people like you and Velma and mitche and the freaky clown and the oddly named truthie, et al? Do you really think their goal was to have a litter box for Pseudo Liberal mental droppings?

        Evidently you do. Or you know better but you don’t care, because the blog is here and you get off on using it that way.

        The blog was created to offer a forum for discussion of conservative politics, with room for rational presentation of the opposing political system for comparison and debate. The conservatives who post here do, for the most part, understand this, and respect it. But none of the Liberals, or Pseudo Liberals (as none of you actually understands the political system you support and defend) has the slightest respect for this goal. I am not sure you are even objective and rational enough to understand it, being so narcissistic that you assume every place is a place for you to exhibit your pathologies.

        But it is confusing to rational people. Why are you here? You offer nothing in the way of actual political discourse. You never present an aspect of your chosen political system as a counterbalance to its opposite on the Right and argue the respective merits of each.

        All you do is insult and attack, and try to disrupt the orderly discussion of actual politics that so many of us come here seeking.

      • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        Amazona – LOL. Go get em.

      • 01canadianobserver November 15, 2012 / 2:11 pm

        I come here mainly for the entertainment value, Amazona. It’s a hoot to read the comments posted by the regulars. I get a big kick out of your sanctimonious rants, in particular. You never disappoint. Keep up the good work!

      • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 2:15 pm

        That’s a bizarre form of entertainment CO, but then again, not much happens in Canada. And you are hardly the one to accuse anyone of sanctimonious rants. Your usual drivel smacks of self righteousness and a level of ignorance I can’t even wrap my head around.

      • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 3:42 pm

        CO, thank you for your candid reply that you find it entertaining to mount nonstop and baseless personal attacks on people just because they think differently than you.

        What you find so entertaining is analogous to gay-bashing, only in this case the difference used to justify the attacks is one of political affiliation and not gender identity. When physical mobs prowl the streets and parks to attack people from a target group—women, gays, blacks, Jews, the homeless—in search of a sick form of “entertainment” we properly recognize them as thugs and cowards.

        Virtual mobs of thugs prowling the internet looking for people who represent a target Other, for the entertainment value they find in attacking them, are no better.

        I appreciate your self-identification as one of these virtual thugs and bullies, and your candor in admitting that there is no other reason for your presence here, such as legitimate political discourse.

        We had it figured out a long time ago, but it is nice to see you admit it yourself.

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        I stand by my (moderated) reply to froggy….LOL rebit 🙂

  5. GMB November 14, 2012 / 8:15 pm

    Keep nominating squishes who believe in nothing and can be shown to believe in nothing.

    I am not looking forward to President Biden or President Clinton. Keep up the squishiness and that is exactly what you are going to have.

    “Rand Paul and Palin would be a formidable pair.”

    Amen brother, I will witness for that congregation.

    • bardolf2 November 15, 2012 / 6:05 pm

      GMB

      Get back into line! I don’t think Palin is a decent candidate. She may be right on some of the issues but she really is just an attention lover.

      Rand Paul on the other hand would be great if paired with say Susanna Martinez from New Mexico.

      • GMB November 15, 2012 / 8:08 pm

        “Get back into line!”

        Nope, never again. If Sarah decides to run in 16, I will do as much “heavy lifting” as I can for her. Last time was my last vote for a squish. For a money man. Nope, not gonna happen again. Let the insults and name calling begin.

        Same for Ron Paul. If he runs and Sarah doesn’t, he will get my support. Not supporting anymore gop insiders that “can win”

        Let the whole rotten edifice collapse.

        That’s my line, Don’t like it? TFB

      • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 8:18 pm

        I think a Rand Paul/Susanna Martinez ticket could be interesting. What we DON’T need to do is start to pander to any subset of the population; religious right, tea party, etc. What we DO need to do is articulate the conservative position more effectively to everyone, because conservative principles when applied, benefit everyone at the expense of no one. and I think after four more years of economic torture, people will listen.

  6. tiredoflibbs November 14, 2012 / 9:11 pm

    “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.” – The Untouchables

    We should learn from this….

    As obAMATEUR once said: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

    It seems obAMATEUR and the Democrats have adopted it.

    Now before you proggy drones get your panties in a twist and soak your dress shields, check this out:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouchables/

    …and they try to lecture us about civility………

    As usual, typically pathetic.

  7. 02casper November 14, 2012 / 9:49 pm

    cluster,
    Welcome back. BFV wouldn’t be the same without you.

    • Cluster November 15, 2012 / 12:05 am

      I am not sure others would agree with you Cap – lol, but thanks.

  8. Jeremiah November 14, 2012 / 10:31 pm

    *Raises Hand* … Social/fiscal Conservative here…

    Subject: Pandering..

    Social:

    Life – I believe ALL life should be protected from conception until death.

    Marriage – marriage is the first form of government, an institution consisting of one man and one woman. It is a divine institution, not a man-made one.

    School led prayer – I believe teachers should be permitted to read the Bible to, and pray with their students. Children need training in morality not just at home.

    Military – I believe our military should be the best equipped, most well funded organization in the country. Our Veteran’s should receive the highest honor and care. Our missile defense system should be reinstated. Corruption within each division should be rooted out, and punished, such as the Patraeous scandal. Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve openly in the military.

    Immigration – I am of the firm belief that our borders should be closed, and anyone trying to enter the country illegally should be treated as an insurgent, and dropped on the spot, or captured, and taken back to their home country. However, if those who wish to come to our country want to fill out the necessary paper work, and go through the necessary training to be assimilated to the American way of life and language. Then they are welcome, and will no longer be considered aliens of our country, but as duly customized citizens of the U.S.

    Healthcare – we have the finest healthcare system in the world, and I think it should be an entirely privately funded organization. A government funded healthcare system would devastate this country, the quality of healthcare would go out the door, and the average taxpaying family would go bankrupt.

    Regulatory organizations – The EPA should be abolished. By 2014 many families will find it hard to heat their homes in the winter time who need a source of heat that they can afford. Such items as a small wood stove, or propane heater will not be available to the general public due to regulations being put into effect by the EPA.

    The United Nations, the communist organization known as the U.N should be abolished. The blood letting allowed under this organization is reprehensible. Its employees should be taken to the gallows for the entertainment of the general pubic.

    2nd Amendment – I am a strong advocate for the right to keep and bear arms. For recreational and self-defense purposes.

    Death Penalty – the death penalty should be reinstated in all states where it has been discontinued. Our neighborhoods and cities should be safe for all. All rapists, murderers, and kidnappers should receive the death penalty.

    Lastly….

    Taxation – I believe in fair and low taxes across the board.

    I do not change my position, nor compromise my position, for the sake of pandering to those who might vote for, and put my party over the top.

    I am a proud, traditional, God-fearing, law-abiding, Bible-thumping, gun-toting citizen of America! 😀

    God bless you all!

    • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:05 pm

      CO, I will ask you the same question I just posed to Velma.

      Why are you here?

      TROLLS being TROLLS

    • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 2:08 pm

      Jer
      *Raises Hand* … Social/fiscal Conservative here…

      Second!!

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        donk SLEAZE………

        REPORT: Jackson Jr. won’t resign until he gets disability pay…

  9. mitchethekid November 15, 2012 / 3:02 pm

    Ama, to answer your question, this blog was created as a temple of worship for GWB. Anyone who offered an opposing point of view by pointing out the obvious was ridiculed, attacked and banned. Your high-minded comment is delusional for there is no tolerance for a rational comparative presentation. The demand for absolute conformity to your dogma will not allow any challenge and anyone who is not a constitutional conservative is; in your mind, not rational. There was a pathological insistence that WMD’s were in Iraq. They weren’t. There is a pathological insistence that global climate change is a hoax. It is not. There is a toxic blend of religiosity and anti-abortion zealotry that has nothing to do with Edmond Burke, his ideas or his philosophy. There are comments made that the president is a Muslim, a Marxist, a socialist, a Kenyan, etc etc etc that are willfully ignored and go unchallenged because they are actually believed. There was a reactionary defense of George Zimmerman and people like John Bolton, Allen West, and Dick Cheney are considered to be qualified leaders and great Americans. When conservatives win, it’s the will of the people. When a “liberal” wins, it’s a foregone conclusion that they cheated or lied or manipulated the voting process. This blog attracts a very small group. It is a fringe group and since you are so defensive about it, why not make it private? Charge admission. There are many reasons why the Republican party and conservatives are held with such disdain right now but the core of the problem is the extremism. This extremism extends to all areas and issues. Social, economic and religion. This extremism is so pervasive and so overwhelming that it won’t allow for self-examination and as such is blaming everyone and everything for the utter trouncing of last week. Except the real problem, which is what you think. Your ideas. Your attitude. If someone provides a link or makes a comment that counters your self-created reality how do you react? The sources of information that you deem credible are so far out on the fringe that you should be embarrassed to refer to them. The bottom line is that this blog his a hodge podge of paranoia, misinformation and a yearning for a time that never was. So, to repeat myself, why am I here? To save you from yourself.

    • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 3:32 pm

      The bottom line is that this blog his a hodge podge of paranoia, misinformation and a yearning for a time that never was. So, to repeat myself, why am I here? To save you from yourself.

      Ha, a self deluded little man with an inferiority complex attempting to make himself relevant anonymously on the internet…..
      nice try TROLL breath!

    • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 3:33 pm

      “To save you from yourself.”

      In other words, your only reason for coming here is to rant and rave about what you think is wrong not with a system you don’t even understand, because that would be too close to actual political discourse, but what you think is wrong with people who think this system is better than yours.

      Which you also do not understand.

      So whole non-response comes down to “Because I like to attack people with different beliefs than mine.”

      In spite of your silly last comment, this is all you have. Because not even someone as delusional as you can possibly believe that the way to salvation—-“To save you from yourself.”—-is to engage in nonstop personal attacks and insults.

      No, you are here because you not only have an irrational loathing of a political identity which you don’t even understand, much less its underlying political philosophy, but of all you associate with it. You are here because your seething hatred of an imagined Other is all that matters to you. So you nurture the lies that make it easier for you to maintain this insane antipathy, you repeat them incessantly because they allow you to pretend your pathology is really political discourse, and you pretend that you are engaging in political dialogue when in fact all you are doing is wallowing in mindless bigotry and glorying in your innate viciousness.

      Which is exactly what you have been showing us in your posts all along.

      You could go away and leave this band of people you despise so much, surround yourself with like-minded haters, and revel in your circle jerks of bigotry and demagoguery. But your own personal pathology demands that you attack others, insult others, try to harm others in some way.

      And that is what you are—a wannabe bully whose only real goal is to mount such vicious attacks and such vile insults that you upset or harm someone else—someone you have never met, who has been targeted only for being different from you.

      When you get down to the core of hating and attacking because others are not like you, you are at the very identity of racism, though in this case the otherness is not one of skin color. But bigotry is bigotry, and efforts to excuse it are equally pathetic no matter what the basis of the bigotry.

      You are a bigot, with the goal of being a bully. Charming.

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 3:50 pm

        This is what the donks offer………

        (drudge)

        JOBLESS…

        INFLATION…

        POVERTY…

        RECESSION… DENNY’S to charge 5% ‘Obamacare surcharge’ and cut employee hours… TEXAS INSTRUMENTS Cuts 5% of Workforce… U.S. Postal Service Loses Record $15.9 Billion… UPDATE: State refuses lawmaker’s request to be paid in gold…

        Obama visits storm-struck NY, declares today America Recycles Day…

        Hurricane victims develop toxic cough…

        Manhattan High-Rise Going On 17 Days Without Power; Stench Of Rotten Eggs…

        REPORT: FEMA Auctioned Off Shelters as Sandy Gained Strength…
        ————————————————————————————-
        OPM and shiny toys to dumbed down drones, illegals, uneducated,and leftist union thugs

      • neocon01 November 15, 2012 / 3:54 pm

        What a DUMB Fk….a LOON leading dummies.

        This is a Manufactured Crisis: Union Boss Richard Trumka Says There’s No ‘Fiscal Cliff’
        Business

        “What we’re facing is an obstacle course within a manufactured crisis that was hastily thrown together in response to inflated rhetoric about our federal deficit.”

    • Amazona November 15, 2012 / 3:52 pm

      mitche’s sanctimonious claim of being here to save us from ourselves by constantly attacking and insulting us reminds me of the sign THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES.

      By the way, guys, do you see how mitche and his kind expose their core beliefs when they try to justify their behavior? They lack the courage or integrity to come right out and say what they think, but it oozes through the cracks when they get wound up.

      So religion is extremism, and believing that we should govern according to our constitution is extremism and having a moral stance against murdering innocent children based on their age and the fact that someone finds them inconvenient is extreme and believing in “innocent until proven guilty” is extreme and not hating Cheney or Bolton for some reason is extreme, and so on. Lying and claiming that people who believe in governing according to our actual rule of law also for some reason are united in denial of the fact that the climate of the globe is changing—-again—-is not extreme.

      But snouting around a conservative blog to constantly attack people because they have different ideas than you—no, that’s not extreme at all. Such is what passes for reality on Planet Mitche.

    • irisspirit November 16, 2012 / 2:16 pm

      Mitch, I was asked the same question by amazona woman – why am I here? And the answer is, just to piss her off. Makes may day.

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 3:22 pm

        Ta-DAAA!!!!!!

        Velma finally admits what we have known all along—that the only thing that motivates her is spite and malice.

        Congrats, Vel. Late to the party but good for you.

        Now—-about working for a company with so many overseas branches. ……….

      • tiredoflibbs November 16, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        Of corse Velma isn’t here for debate. She has shown only to regurgitate dumbed down talking point specifically designed for her limitd mentality. After being challenged with fact and logic, she runs away like a little coward. Only to return once again and repeat the cycle all over again in a different thread.

        ….just like obAMATEUR’s stump speeches.

  10. mitchethekid November 15, 2012 / 10:28 pm

    Amazona I’m Perseus and you’re Medusa. But I choose to use the mirror rather than the sword.

    • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 2:16 am

      I see your insanity has reached the grandiose level, where you now cast yourself as a mythical hero. And that you are still not interested in, or capable of, any kind of dialogue other than venting your hatred and your hostility.

      No surprise there.

      • mitchethekid November 16, 2012 / 10:16 am

        if you think you are capable of having an emotionless discussion of political models, I am more than willing to engage you. Just pick an issue and we can have a debate. Prove to me what you said yesterday about the original purpose of this blog. As far as my reference to Perseus, you need to fine tune your sarcasm meter. I’m often surprised at the conclusions you jump to in light of your use of the same. I’m sure you notice than when I write, I use allot of metaphors. Looking forward to your response. 🙂

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 10:59 am

        Hey, I merely referred to your comment that you are the mythical hero, Perseus. I fully expected your next post to open the possibility of you being a god, being the son of Zeus and all.

        But if you want to finally, after all this time, engage in an actual discussion of actual political topics, instead of merely hurling insults (which you may think are lightning bolts….) then let’s see how far you get.

        Let’s start with something really basic.

        Compare the success of the American constitutional model, when fully operational, in its first 100 years, with the success of the Leftist political model, when fully operational, in ITS first 100 years.

        I choose to measure success by the following criteria: Economic prosperity and personal liberty.

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 11:03 am

        BTW, a discussion will probably be more productive if we can agree to use the same definitions for words.

        For example, the actual meaning of the word “allot” is to distribute or assign, as in to allot the council extra funds for the Christmas decorations.

      • tiredoflibbs November 16, 2012 / 11:25 am

        bitchie: ” I use allot of metaphors.”

        Yep….

        … since REALITY and FACTS are just too painful for you to face.

        I noticed, again, that you avoided my response to your erroneous “zygote” post.

        Cowardly and typical of a mindless drone.

  11. Retired Spook November 16, 2012 / 1:02 pm

    if you think you are capable of having an emotionless discussion of political models, I am more than willing to engage you. Just pick an issue and we can have a debate.

    Still have “political models” and “issues” confused, eh Mitch? Pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion when you can’t even grasp that simple distinction.

    • mitchethekid November 16, 2012 / 1:49 pm

      If you read Ama’s post you will see that her contention was this:
      The blog was created to offer a forum for discussion of conservative politics, with room for rational presentation of the opposing political system for comparison and debate.
      Now how exactly am I confusing issues with a paradigm? This country was founded on the liberal ideas of John Locke and the enlightenment. In this sense, virtually all Americans are liberals. However, the Dred Scott decision decided that these rights only applied to white males and blacks had no rights whatsoever. Because of this, the constitution was amended several times to extend these rights to even larger classes of citizens ultimately leading to the civil rights act and the increasing acceptance of (say) gay marriage as “an issue” that we are witnessing today. The terms left and right arose from the seating arrangements in the Estates General with those on the left supporting social equality, opposing the monarchy, supporting the revolution and the creation of a republic. Those seated on the right supported the monarchy and the traditional social constructs.
      As far as which model, if only given a choice between a constitutional model or a more liberal one, and it’s impact on both personal liberty and economic prosperity, economic prosperity was a success in the south because of slave labor and the only group that had personal liberty overall were white males. It’s ironic that the constitution was born out of liberal precepts. I do not think it is a fair comparison to use the 1st 100 yrs vs the following 100. Now if it is the concept of states rights vs federalism, that’s a different “issue”. My take, is that federalism is best understood not as a system that creates rights for states but one that provides benefits for the citizens of the nation.
      This blog, in my opinion, infuses social “issues” into a political construct and on that basis tries to find legitimacy for the moral aspect of say, abortion. It then extrapolates the mechanics of that thought process to be applicable to other areas, lets say science in general. So if you want to discuss an issue, just name it. Amazona proposed a topic. Not an issue. But leave it to you to turn it into one. I suppose it makes you feel superior.

      • Amazona November 16, 2012 / 2:49 pm

        “So if you want to discuss an issue, just name it. Amazona proposed a topic. Not an issue.”

        No, what you SAID was “….if you think you are capable of having an emotionless discussion of political models I am more than willing to engage you.

        And then you try the typical Lefty tactic of redefining inconvenient terms, like your effort to redefine a political model as just a “topic”, and your desperate need to shift from “.. an emotionless discussion of political models…” to the more familiar territory of emotion-based, infinitely flexible, ISSUES.

        Face it. You do not understand the political model you support and defend by attacking its opposition (which you also do not understand) and you are highly resistant to actually LEARNING about this system. It may be too complicated for you, but I suggest it is because deep down you know it is indefensible, with an unrelieved history of failures when fully implemented, resulting in economic misery, oppression, loss of liberty, and too often the slaughter of tens of millions in efforts to gain and retain political power.

        It is much safer to dodge the subject altogether, and if possible shift the focus onto something less dangerous.

  12. Amazona November 16, 2012 / 2:43 pm

    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 18th Century philosopher blah blah blah Dred Scott blah blah blah blah monarchy blah blah “I do not think it is a fair comparison to use the 1st 100 yrs vs the following 100. ” (which was not even the question…) blah blah blah.

    In other words, you refuse to discuss the political models which are the foundation of the models we are using in the early days of the 21st Century.

    You said “…if you think you are capable of having an emotionless discussion of political models, I am more than willing to engage you…”

    So I suggest an emotionless discussion of the political models of the first century of Constitutional government compared to the first century of Leftist government, knowing that this will provide an excellent means of measuring their comparative merits, and you throw up a lot of verbal chaff to try to hide the fact that you can’t, or won’t, do what you said you would do.

    Quick survey of conservative bloggers—-anyone surprised?

    I thought not.

  13. Amazona November 16, 2012 / 3:05 pm

    From wading through mitche’s verbal sludge, I think it is clear that if we were to engage in a spirited discussion of whether vanilla latte drinkers could be said to actually love coffee, a position taken by purists who declare that you can’t love coffee if you don’t drink it black and unsweetened, he would extrapolate that coffee forms an integral part of conservative politics——infusing a social “issue” into a political construct and on that basis trying to find legitimacy for the moral aspect of say, the addition of vanilla syrup and steamed milk, and then extrapolating the mechanics of that thought process to be applicable to other areas, blah blah blah.

  14. mitchethekid November 16, 2012 / 3:07 pm

    Vulgar language and ageism. You will be removed from the blog if you continue posts like this. //Moderator

    • neocon01 November 16, 2012 / 5:15 pm

      Bmitckthefake

      BUB BYH Troll

    • tiredoflibbs November 16, 2012 / 5:17 pm

      What was that bitchie?

      You are the one always whining and lecturing us about civility. Too bad you mouth has overloaded your rear-end once again.

      Typical and pathetic.

  15. Amazona November 16, 2012 / 3:12 pm

    And let’s not overlook the frantic effort to dismiss the economic prosperity resulting from the heady combination of a small federal government, states’ rights and personal liberty into an explanation that the only reason for any economic prosperity at all was slave labor and the only people who experienced personal liberty were white males.

    I know, I know—it is too easy to goad mitche into what would, for a rational person, to be embarrassing exposures of various bigotries and areas of ignorance. I suppose I should be ashamed of myself—-and I would be, honest I would, if there was any evidence of comprehension on his part of the ridiculousness of what he says. But as long as he remains oblivious to this ever-growing portrait of utter stupidity and vicious bigotry, I don’t need to feel too bad about luring him along the path of constantly increasing evidence of same.

Comments are closed.