Weak Tea

Well, the House did their part, now it goes to the Senate for a vote tomorrow. You all can make up your own mind wrt the worthiness of the deal, who it benefits, and will it do anything to diminish the debt long term. For my ownself, a glass half full kind of guy, I would back the deal. Considering that this is the first time in history that any debt increase has been coupled with spending cuts, that there is some real cuts in this deal, and that there are no tax hikes listed in the body, I figure that this was pretty good for one half of one third of the government to dictate terms. Here is a Tea Party Senator that feels differently:

Another TP guy, Allen West, is voting for the deal, and some TP loud mouths have decided that he is now a traitor, unworthy of his TP credentials and have targeted him for removal in the next election:

The announcement last week that tea party groups were targeting West for supporting the debt ceiling plan proposed by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — a plan that could not get enough Republican support to pass the House — was taken as a sign that the movement had started to eat its own. In 2012, West was propelled into office by tea party activists; he’s a fixture on the tea party circuit. If he can’t survive one controversial vote with his reputation intact, no one can.

In my other TP post I posed several questions to the commenters here that thought I was off track, they are still unanswered, so I’ll list them again here:

So I guess you think that all TEA Party candidates must be monolithic, cannot think for themselves, and must vote with one voice, is the right?
I guess you think that if any TP guy voted for the BP he is a traitor and must be voted out at the next election, is that right?
Two of the House’s most prominent TP members (Allen West and Rand Paul) voted differently on the BP, so in your narrow view, one must have betrayed his principals and a concerted effort must be mounted to get him voted out next election, is that right?
Do you think it is possible, just maybe, that a TP guy who knew the BP was all bluster anyway since it would not get through the Senate could vote yes with a clear conscious and an adherence to his TP principals with the idea that nothing is damaged but a lot is gained because now the majority leader has some much needed backing and support from his party?
Do you think it was a good idea for the new kid on the block (the TP) to go around making all kinds of noise about a plan to get rid of Boehner when he has been a good leader (so far), the TP folks just walk in the door and now they act like they own the place and want to upset the apple cart, you don’t see how this looks to the independents, those folks that you will need if you have any chance at all to get rid of Obama next year, and isn’t that the number goal all along?
What do you really expect them to do, part the Red Sea when they just got there, only have a few members, and their party only controls one half of one third of the government?

Being a supporter of the TP philosophy and with a hope that they can gain traction and support for the next election, I can see how it is possible for two TP guys to stay true to their principles and vote differently, just like right thinking people here can differ in an approach and still remain consistent with conservative values. But some I guess believe that any deviation from the marching orders delivered by TP headquarters (who ever the hell makes those decisions, I don’t know) and that guy deserves to walk the plank.

I understand the need for bluster, and this is politics, I understand that, but I’m going to be watching those TP folks come next election and if I even smell any disloyalty on their part towards one of the finest Representatives in the country, and their prints are on the weapon that got him axed, not only will they have killed any of my support, ever, but I will do whatever I can to marginalize them and relegate them to the corner where the LSM put them already, the crazy fringe corner.

Comments are closed.

  1. West Virginia Rebel

    Allen West, is if anything, proving to be at least a savvier politician than Debbie Wassername. I think you’re seeing what happens when idealists of any stripe get actual power-there are going to be those who want “purity” and those who see political reality. I understand some of their objections about earlier versions of the bill because it was, I think, a lot closer to what the WH wanted, but if Boehner can get something passed in the Senate that looks reasonable, then he’ll be able to put the onus on Obama and Reid to put up or shut up about “Compromise.”

    Thumb up 0

  2. TxAg94

    Nice plug by Mike Lee for his “new book”. How about Tea Party folks focusing on having their guys be COngressmen and Congresswomen versus part-time legislators and part-time writers. I stopped the video as soon as he plugged his own crap. What a douche. Not surprising he’s from Utah given what I’ve seen living there the last few years.

    Thumb up 0

  3. Manwhore

    I will do this without commenting on downdings. The TP did what they were supposed to do, and what they were elected to do. The deal is bullshit and temporary. Real change comes in when Union benefits dominate the conversations. I just read today that a city in RI went bankrupt because they had a budget of 17 mil and a state obligation of over 88 mil. to pensioners.

    Like CA there is no way to pay it. Kicking the can down the road is just humorous. Even GB has started austerity measures and we will too. We just don’t have the money for all of this. I’ll tell you straight up that the private industry has no plan for it but for layoffs. If that sits well with you, there probably isn’t much more use for discussion.

    Thumb up 2

  4. richtaylor365 *

    I will make a deal with you Manwhore, I will write a post this week about Unions and you can go nuts, but in return you have to promise me that you will not thread jack anymore posts but will stay on topic……….deal?

    Thumb up 1

  5. Manwhore

    I have been trying to do my due diligence. As the rules come in I try to abide by them. I am…on topic, to the point, and not vitriolic about my message.

    I really am trying to be a good boy here, and not just to you. I do have my views about Unions in general. I don’t think those ever changed. I am still trying my hardest to roll them into the threads you write.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Poosh

    Even GB has started austerity measures and we will too.

    The little the current government has done (next to nothing) will ensure they are not elected next election.

    It’s funny you mention state pensions, the gov wanted to make Teachers pay a bit more into their pensions – pensions much better than the average private sector pension – and half the greedy ****s went on strike for a day.

    Thumb up 0

  7. richtaylor365 *

    Yes, but that is just bad blog etiquette, come on, you ran a blog before, you know this. Thread jacking all the time makes you look like a trouble maker who can’t follow the rules. I understand your fixation with unions, that is why I offered to write one for you, but there are rules. So will you take my deal or not?

    Thumb up 1

  8. Manwhore

    I just care about this country and the issues. Maybe you should too? Thread jacking is defined as taking one thread and turning it into something you didnt post about. I would argue that hasnt happened.

    I dont care about the life of Kim Kardashian, I care about us.

    Thumb up 2

  9. CzarChasm

    I may be accused of thread jacking too, but I think the major flaw in this deal has little to do with debt ceilings, the Tea Party, Allen West or Rand Paul. This deal is horrible because it creates a 12-person “Super Congress.” This committee will have powers that their contemporaries won’t enjoy, but more importantly, powers that the Constitution conveys only upon the full Congress. A legislative proposal from them cannot be filibustered in the Senate, and cannot be amended in the House. Since it takes away the filibuster in the Senate, it likewise takes away the 60 vote threshold that Lee says he will join others in imposing on the Senate vote later today, probably the last time he’ll have that option on any piece of legislation concerning debt and/or spending.

    This excrement sandwich legislation also gives Obama autonomous powers to raise the debt ceiling. I haven’t personally gotten to that part of it yet in my research, but several conservative pundits have mentioned it as late as 8:00 PM CST last night when I heard Hannity confront Ryan on the issue, which Ryan avoided like the plague as he went to his pat “66% of what we want is better than nothing” answer. My, how comforting it is to know that they got 66% of the economic issues ironed out, while ignoring the provisions that are 100% counter to the Constitution!

    This is another one of those, “We have to pass it before we know what’s in it” pieces of crap that not one single legislator will have fully read before they cast their votes. The only difference is that this time, it’s the Republicans pushing it as a “good deal.” The fact is, this is nothing but establishment hackery at its finest from both parties. If the Tea Party ends up supporting the traitors that support this crap bill, I will fight them as vociferously as the OP says he’ll fight them if they oppose them.

    BTW, I am inclined to like Allen West too, but this isn’t his first vote against liberty. He also voted to renew the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is the umbrella under which the TSA is protected for their consistent abuses of citizens. The Patriot Act has done more to weaken 4th Amendment protections than any piece of legislation or wannabe tyrant in the history of America. I understand this thread isn’t about the Patriot Act, but you can’t put West up on a pedestal and threaten to go after any group who thinks they have good cause to oppose him without fully scrutinizing his record to determine if this one vote on the debt ceiling and “Super Congress” is really the only reason for the opposition. It most certainly isn’t.

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  10. Rann

    I just care about this country and the issues. Maybe you should too?

    Okay, seriously? Usually this sort of blatant heartstring-tugging defense is reserved for strawmen, or parodies of particularly lame politicians, stuff like that. Excusing whatever you do with “Well I CARE about America, why don’t you?!” is perhaps one of the most pathetic, mewling things you can do, right up there with saying “Oh, I won’t bring up that subject I was being a bitch about, even though by pledging not to bring it up I just did to rub your face in it.”

    It’s getting as hard to believe that you’re an adult as it was to believe Muirgawhatever was.

    Thumb up 3

  11. JimK

    Rich, just warning you, but I kind of hate unions and you ain’t gonna love me no more after you do this post. :) Don’t worry. I’ll still love you from afar though.

    Wait was that too gay? /end threadjack

    Thumb up 0

  12. dahlhowse

    I too decry the “Super Congress.” It deprives 429 Congressmen of the ability to amend important legislation, as well as 94 Senators, and since committee appointments are essentially done by seniority rules, only establishment members are likely to make it on the committee, cementing the TP out of the process, which I think is possibly by design.

    However, I think this is a crap deal altogether. This bill doesn’t cut spending a cent. It cuts the projected growth in spending.

    Thumb up 3

  13. richtaylor365 *

    No worries, unions are a big problem, but there was two sides to every coin and their duplicity has had willing co conspirators. But I’m not going to write it (for now) because MW could not hold up his end of the deal.

    Re: man crush, too late, you had me after that clip of you singing karaoke.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Manwhore

    Aww, really? What the heck did I do in this thread to offend thee? This time around there isn’t a shred of evidence against me, and you know it.

    Do us all a favor and climb to the top of the mountain and tell us how great unions are. Don’t let poor wittle stupid manwhore deprive you of the opportunity to speak your mind.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Manwhore

    Not only do you have the finest nic in the blogsphere, I like the cut of your jib. This deal is a hot load of bs and all it really is is a cap on the amount of spending that government wanted to do.

    Thumb up 3

  16. richtaylor365 *

    I think both of you guys are misunderstanding the power and purpose of this “super committee”. First off I gotta say how sick I am of the whole concept of special committees, Gang of 6, Simpson/Bowles, they are all window dressing and don’t mean jack. But remember, this 12 man panel is only an advisory panel, they have no special powers. Their job is to come up with a certain dollar amount of cuts at certain dates (all subject to an up/down vote by other members of Congress) and if they can’t come to any agreement then automatic riders kick in, making the cuts for them. And as for the members chosen, it will not be by seniority but by ideology, only the principled and persuasive (for their sides) will be on the panel.

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365 *

    As I said yesterday, I will write the post if you give me something in return. Apparently abiding by the rules is just too damn difficult for you. A simple promise of better behavior in the future (no thread jacking) and you get your chance.

    Thumb up 0

  18. Manwhore

    You have to comprehend what you’re asking me to do. This thread isn’t hijacked unless you did it yourself. I think what you’re really afraid of is what the response might be to a thread like this so you’re wetting your pants now.

    Like I said, don’t blame an idiot like me for inhibiting you from speaking your mind. Talking about unfair to this blog..

    This is the majors. Suit up and take a swing.

    Thumb up 1

  19. richtaylor365 *

    A real Brit perspective:

    For British conservatives, the US debt deal is a thing of beauty. Under the terms of the deal, the federal government will cut spending by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years and there won’t be any corresponding increase in taxation. That is to say, the American Government has agreed to tackle its deficit by spending cuts alone. The British Government, by contrast, is planning to cut its deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises – and it’s cutting it by a smaller amount.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CzarChasm

    “But remember, this 12 man panel is only an advisory panel, they have no special powers.”

    No special powers? Where are you getting your information? Is it not a “special power” to have it mandated that any legislation that originates in that committee cannot be filibustered in the Senate? Is it not a “special power” that any legislation that originates in that committee overrides the Speaker’s ability to prevent unpopular bills from coming to the Floor in the House?

    Even Reid is being up front about what the “Super Congress” is capable of when he says, “The joint committee — there are no constraints. They can look at any program we have in government, any program. … It has the ability to look at everything.” Reid said that on the Senate Floor! Every Republican knows this is what they’re voting for because the Majority Leader put it on the record! Gun control anyone? Tax increases? Expanding the Patriot Act? Federally funded abortions? All of these issues can be brought for a strict up or down vote with no filibuster available to the Senate and no amendments and/or revisions available to the House, and the Speaker can’t stop it, and you say the committee doesn’t have any “special powers?”

    And please don’t tell us that those things will never come out of that Super Committee because the equal voices between Dems and Reps won’t allow it. Only one President has out-spent Barack Hussein Obama and the 111th/112th Congress, and that was Bush with such “conservative” programs as the drug entitlement program and TARP I, and much of his out-of-control spending was done while Republicans held both houses of Congress.

    And please explain to us how a committee comprised of equal numbers of House and Senate members that can bring legislation to both Floors simultaneously, even on spending and taxation issues, doesn’t completely decimate the House’s role as the source of all governmental spending. More than creating just another “advisory committee,” this is a rewrite of the enumerated powers of each house of Congress in the Constitution!

    The Constitution clearly delineates the process by which laws are made, and this “Super Committee” or “Super Congress” clearly defies that process. The weasels in the House have already said with their votes that, “We’re simply not up to taking a firm, principled stand on anything, so with this “Yes” vote, we abdicate our responsibilities, but more importantly, our accountability when legislation is hated by The People, and hand it all over to 12 hacks appointed by the most deeply-entrenched establishment members of both houses of Congress.”

    Like I said before, as ineffective and insignificant as the economic provisions of this deal are, it’s the Super Congress creation that amounts to the destruction of the Constitution that conservatives who aren’t beholden to the establishment Party Line should be the most concerned about.

    CC

    Thumb up 4

  21. richtaylor365 *

    it’s the Super Congress creation that amounts to the destruction of the Constitution that conservatives who aren’t beholden to the establishment Party Line should be the most concerned about.

    I would not be too concerned. The Special committee and balanced budget vote provision were thrown in just to garner support, both really don’t mean much. With the make up of this Congress the BBA is DOA just like Boehner’s first debt ceiling proposal. And the special panel, do you really think anything revolutionary will come out of that? Not happened before, any proposal they agree to will be so watered down, antiseptic and docile that it won’t mean much.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT

    I still have a hard time considering another $2.4 trillion in new debt – you know the demcorats will spend this easily, and far faster than anyone thinks – and our defense budget being held hostage by class warrior scumbags as a victory, but apparently everyone else, including most that will be honest on the left, think it was so.

    Making Obama, the people that think like him, and the tax & spend leftists all look bad is all great and stuff, but the fact remains that it’s more of the same. In the end this is just another sad chapter in the battle between the elite that have made it big using class warfare and the serfs. Hopefully, it is the death of the big government state as this Telegraph article claims, we have come a long way since the sordid taunts of the death of conservative beliefs and the 2008 sweep by the collectivists, in a very short time, but I am afraid it is all too little too late.

    Thumb up 1

  23. Manwhore

    Who do we thank for this, then? The Tea Party? You seem to enjoy riding the pine, so once again. Why would you post about “Dumping Tea” “Weak Tea” and then in the same breath laud the success of the bill (compared to the UK)? For all intents and purposes, this bill’s success or failure has been placed wholly on the Tea Party.

    Which is it with you?

    Thumb up 1

  24. Jim

    Not too concerned? Last I heard, if this panel cannot come to an agreement, the special riders kick in, most of which automatically cut Defense spending and funding to Medicare providers. I don’t know about you, but it scares me to think that 6 people can lock out the committee if they don’t like the idea of cutting XYZ over simply letting Defense take a huge hit.
    I’m looking for documentation, but what further concerns me is the report I heard this morning that anyone who voted against this bill is *automatically excluded* from serving on that 12 person panel. Excuse me?? Wtf is *that* all about? *THIS* is a *compromise*???
    The Tea Party (and the American people) won a “compromise” on this bill in much the same way the Japanese won a “compromise” after Hiroshima.

    Thumb up 5

  25. Manwhore

    It’s like what I thought of the balanced budget amendment in retrospect. What if the White house just decides that the way to balance the budget is to raise taxes?

    None of the hard decisions have been made, no concessions outside of military spending.

    Thumb up 1

  26. richtaylor365 *

    but it scares me to think that 6 people can lock out the committee if they don’t like the idea of cutting XYZ over simply letting Defense take a huge hit.

    It would take 7 members, not 6.

    Arguably, this is the worst part of the deal but understand its purpose. The motivation for this wording was to get the panel to agree on specific cuts, the right puts up their golden cafe (defense) and the left puts up theirs (non defense/domestic programs), if each side wants to preserve their own pet projects then they have to work together to come up with something the rest of Congress can vote for.

    I’m looking for documentation, but what further concerns me is the report I heard this morning that anyone who voted against this bill is *automatically excluded*

    No, more bluster. From the GOP perspective, hardened anti tax warriors will only be considered.

    As I said before, there will be reasons to grouse about any budget deal, no one gets everything they want but when you consider how little real power the GOP/TP faction holds, one half of one third of the government, there was some real gains made here.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Manwhore

    Yeah, don’t be too concerned. When these guys do what they voted on trust me(and richer rich) that all unions and gummint employees are taken care of.

    You wanna know why I know all this shit is a scam? Both rich and Hal approve. Case closed.

    Thumb up 1

  28. AlexInCT

    Only one President has out-spent Barack Hussein Obama and the 111th/112th Congress, and that was Bush with such “conservative” programs as the drug entitlement program and TARP I, and much of his out-of-control spending was done while Republicans held both houses of Congress

    Actually Obama – well, I should say congress under Obama to be fair, since congress does the spending – has already far outspent Bush’s complete outlay in the 8 years he was president, including the last 2 where Pelosi set new records while controlling the house, by at least a trillion, with trillions more projected to happen before he gets done. And they are trimming back only a miniscule portion of that spending.

    If the government rulling class had kept the deficit spending at the early Bush levels, I think it would have taken a couple of decades for Americans to realize how out of control the borrowing & spending had gotten. Thankfully the democrats decided to run multi trillion dollar annual deficits, in the first three years they had power – while blaming Bush too – and projected for the next decade, while wasting the money on growing government, and people got wise to the fact that our elite where screwing us over.

    I am not making excuses for the deficit spending of the Bush years – in fact it pisses me off even more considering that republican where supposed to be fiscally conservative and they where nothing but – but I seriously dislike people equating the two, or claiming Bush was worse, because it obfuscates the fact democrats are telling a huge lie when they claim they can be fiscally responsible. At least the republicans did it once upon a time.

    At this point I am praying we get a balanced budget amendment, one that doesn’t leave loopholes these crooks cane abuse to take their collectivist spending off the books, but hold little hope of that. Without it though, I see no chance that they stop doing more of what they are doing. In fact, I expect them to raise taxes sooner than later, then increase spending yet again by double the amount of “new revenue” (a dirty fucking word when government people use it IMO), borrowing the difference, because the important thing for them is the power and the ability to enrich themselves now. When the country implodes, as it will if we let them keep doing this, they even likely believe the people will have no recourse but to let government take over everything. Win-win. I hope we make the French revolution look like an old people convention when we take our anger out on them when we they finally get us there.

    Thumb up 1

  29. CzarChasm

    Actually Alex, I did misstate my point. I meant to say that Bush and the Congresses during his terms were out-spent by only one President, and that is Barack Hussein Obama and the 111th/112th Congresses. I got a little dyslexic as to which President fit into which chronological time-slot, but please read it again with that correction and let me know if you still “seriously dislike” the way I have equated them.

    And please don’t tell us that those things will never come out of that Super Committee because the equal voices between Dems and Reps won’t allow it. Only one President has out-spent Bush and the 106th thru 110th Congresses, who gave us such “conservative” programs as the drug entitlement program and TARP I, and that would of course be Barack Hussein Obama and the 111th/112th Congress. And much of Bush’s out-of-control spending was done while Republicans held both houses of Congress.

    Fair point or not? Regardless of your answer, it’s a fair point to me in the context of scrutinizing the “safety valve” of having equal numbers of Dems and Reps on the Super Committee in an effort to determine the kinds of potentially devastating legislation that might emerge from it. To me, no “safety valve” that uses the “bulwark” of having establishment Republicans guarding our liberties and economic health provides us any safety at all. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the right and left are just two wings of the same bird. I respond well only to those politicians who base their policies on the Constitution, founding principles as articulated in the Declaration and common law, and am highly suspicious of those who virtually never even mention those ideals in favor of pushing their party affiliation as the reason they should be voted for.

    …but I seriously dislike people equating the two, or claiming Bush was worse, because it obfuscates the fact democrats are telling a huge lie when they claim they can be fiscally responsible. At least the republicans did it once upon a time.

    “Once upon a time” is the best possible way to articulate that thought. It gives it that much-deserved fairy tale kind of quality that I don’t think you intended, but which is true nonetheless. Republicans can’t save this country Alex, only conservatives can, and there’s a dearth of constitutional originalists in the Republican Party as severe as the dearth of social conservatives in the Democrat Party. One might be able to legitimately argue that good intentions underpin the Republican Party more so than the Dems, but how one can legitimately claim that constitutional conservatism reigns within the party is a provable fairy tale. Holding up Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Pawlenty, or even Palin or West as constitutional originalists after their continuing support of the Patriot Act extensions is quite well beyond any objective, legitimate scrutiny of the term. They’re all simply the muscles flapping the right wing of the globalist, collectivist bird.

    At this point I am praying we get a balanced budget amendment, one that doesn’t leave loopholes these crooks cane abuse to take their collectivist spending off the books, but hold little hope of that.

    I take it by the way you stated that prayer that the BBA that was proposed in the “cut, cap and balance” bill did not fit the above criteria of eliminating loopholes? Good catch if that’s what you mean. That BBA would’ve been nothing more than feel-good prattle written into the Constitution, tampering with an economic system that wouldn’t need any tweaking if we had principled and moral leaders at the helm. That pretty much makes my first point though; Republicans wrote that BBA, thus engaging in the same symbolism-over-substance way of “leading” that they consistently accuse Democrats of doing. Of course they’re right, Democrats do consistently “lead” that way too, but any evaluation of Dems that can’t effectively be negated by Reps’ own way of leading is hypocritical at best, wouldn’t you say? Two wings of the same bird.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  30. AlexInCT

    CzarChasm, I got the gist of your post -and I agreed with it – but thought you got the Bush vs. Obama spending championship wrong, and replied to that to correct it. I am glad you took the time to point out that was what you meant to say however, because then it drives the point you are making home with much more vigor.

    I remain horrified about what this special commission will do to us. I am not under any illusion that any politician wants to take the risk of doing the right thing – gut government spending and get these social programs under control by revamping them completely, with government out of the loop – to fix the course we are currently on.

    Our constitution seems to have been pissed on when they gave us the great society, and they have just gone further off course as time progressed. Frankly I fear we have reached a point where those that depend on the state for a living outnumber those of us that work for a living, and like the Greeks found out close to 3 millennia ago, that’s the end of any form of government that isn’t tyrannical in nature.

    Thumb up 1

  31. CzarChasm

    Thanks for the intelligent reply Alex, one that I agree with entirely. The “Great Society” was indeed a left turn towards the abyss, but I think we’d do well to go back even further than that and look into how to reverse the assault on the Constitution that Woodrow Wilson, the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the formation of the Federal Reserve ushered in to have a decent chance at righting this severely listing ship. But that would indeed be a thread-jack, so I’ll leave it to one of you authors to bring up or not as you see fit.

    In the meantime, I can’t say in strong enough terms how betrayed I feel by this debt ceiling “compromise” and the Super Congress that will most assuredly be used against the so-called conservatives who support it. If that support comes from the Tea Party, so be it, let the chips fall where they may, but that would necessarily bring into question their conservative bonafides in my eyes. It would bring into question their very ability to critically evaluate the state of the Union at all, in fact.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  32. richtaylor365 *

    In the meantime, I can’t say in strong enough terms how betrayed I feel by this debt ceiling “compromise” and the Super Congress that will most assuredly be used against the so-called

    Let me ask you a question CC, given the dynamics of those that hold the real power in Washington, what deal would you have preferred they do? Realistically, what would you have liked that was possible to implement?

    Thumb up 0

  33. CzarChasm

    To be honest rich, I don’t even know what you mean when you say, “…given the dynamics of those that hold the real power in Washington…” The Republicans hold the House. Is that “real power,” or just not the real power? Point being, they won the House by preaching smaller government, holding the line on spending, repealing ObamaCare and other somewhat lesser issues. Those were principles they espoused. I would have them live by the principles that got them there. It’s that simple.

    Beyond that though, I would have them stop pissing down our necks and telling us it’s raining, and one of the things they do that with is this crap about this deal “cutting spending by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years,” which you seem happy to help them promote that lie by posting an uncorrected “real Brit perspective.” They haven’t even cut one red cent in spending with this deal. They have only slowed the rate of growth, so instead of adding $10 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, they’ll “only” add $7.6 trillion, and that’s only if they stick to that plan, or the 5 subsequent congresses allow them to, neither of which is a good bet at all. So in reality, the chances of even slowing the rate of growth by the projected amount is nil.

    As far as what I would have them implement instead, anything that adheres to the Constitution, addresses the problems we face as a nation and promotes the freest market and smallest government possible, both of the latter of which are guaranteed to grow the economy back to sustainable levels. I would’ve preferred that the House stood firm on cut, cap and balance even though I think it was likely mostly fluff too. The fact is, the House Republicans have real power, but they’re afraid (or unwilling) to wield it. Gridlock is better than governance by fiat, and rewriting the Constitution and placing 12 establishment hacks in charge of our economic future is exactly that, governance by fiat. Your telling me not to worry too much about it is quite a bit short of comforting.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  34. richtaylor365 *

    To be honest rich, I don’t even know what you mean when you say, “…given the dynamics of those that hold the real power in Washington…” The Republicans hold the House. Is that “real power,” or just not the real power?

    It is real limited power and we saw the real limit to that limited power in Cut, Cap, and Balance, remember? a noble endeavor, for sure, that could not even pass muster with the Senate, what did you think the President was going to do with it? So the GOP runs the House, BFD, what good did it do them with Cut, Cap, and Balance?

    It’s that simple.

    No, it’s not really that simple. In the body of the post I offered up two TP guys, proud TP guys that honestly believe they espouse and live by the very fundamentals of the TP, yet they each voted differently on this proposal and I posited the question on whether it was possible to have a different position on this matter and still be faithful to the movement.So, I guess, according to you, they must all be monolithic and voted as ordered, or they are traitors and must be ousted at the earliest opportunity.

    As far as what I would have them implement instead, anything that adheres to the Constitution, addresses the problems we face as a nation and promotes the freest market and smallest government possible, both of the latter of which are guaranteed to grow the economy back to sustainable levels.

    Flowery rhetoric but what does that even mean? Are you saying the agreement was unconstitutional? Are you saying that the GOP should’ve worked for a better deal? Better then what happened in Feb. 2010 where Obama and crew raised the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion without so much as consulting the other side and giving in to spending cuts (That is what I mean by real power, when your side runs everything, you can do that, when your side runs only the House, you really don’t have much).

    . I would’ve preferred that the House stood firm on cut, cap and balance even though I think it was likely mostly fluff too.

    They did stand firm, all the way up till Reid tabled the proposal in the Senate, again, that real power thingee you are not grasping.

    Your telling me not to worry too much about it is quite a bit short of comforting.

    I wasn’t telling you not to worry about the mounting debt, our credit rating, and our financial standing in the world, worry a lot about those things, I do.

    Don’t misinterpret my pragmatism as somehow thinking any of this is OK, I am as concerned about the debt problem more then most, but controlling the House really means dick if you want a real lasting change of course. If the GOP can unseat the president (no easy feat) and gain control of the Senate, then and only then will the GOP be able to wield real power in effecting a turn around and applying some sanity wrt our finances. Right now all we can do is stem the flow the best we can.

    Thumb up 0

  35. balthazar

    Why would it take 7 members todo nothing and just let defense take a 10% hit? Thats part of the bill that was passed already. 6 people just decide they dont like anything the other 6 are proposing, and now Defense takes a huge hit. AWESOME!

    Humm how many Dems are on the SC? 6? Ok.

    Thumb up 1

  36. CzarChasm

    I like gridlock. Better than any other option available to us in fact. The less that happens in D.C., the happier I am. If the only weapon that the House with their GOP majority has to wield is gridlock, then wield it with gusto is the way I feel about it. The so-called compromise they came to was nothing but a compromise with themselves, as Obama and Reid never had an alternative bill on the table. Boehner stood there in the Well of the House all indignant yelling for them to put something on the table, which they never did, but the “compromise” was reached anyway. This is leadership? This is strength? I much prefer gridlock.

    And yes, the Super Committee is indeed unconstitutional by my reckoning. If you think otherwise, I suggest you read carefully through Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution and see who and how many are supposed to conduct the legislative processes described therein. Here’s a hint; the “who” does not include any senators when the legislation is of a spending, taxing or economic nature, and the “how many” is several times more than 12. But I shouldn’t concern myself too much with that, right? It’s just the Constitution.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  37. CzarChasm

    For more on the power-grab and constitutional issues involved in the Super Committee, check out Cavuto interviewing Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano on it just yesterday. I had not seen or heard either of their arguments before making my last post. Great minds just think alike. ;-)~

    HA! Even Keith Olberman says it’s unconstitutional, and people should “protest in the streets!” Man, politics sure makes for strange bedfellows….Hey Keith, quit hoggin’ the blankets! LOL

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  38. richtaylor365 *

    Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. With all the caterwauling from both sides, you would think that if there was just a hint of legal ambiguity that a constitutional challenge would commence immediately, I’m not holding my breath. Ron Paul is like that crazy uncle you keep in your basement, he was the guy that said us terminating OBL was akin to premeditated murder and that if he was president he would not have authorized the mission, what a dolt. And although I like the judge, he has been wrong before. What he did not mention was that, yeah, the super committee’s proposals are married to a straight up and down vote, but there is no limit to the proposals put forth. So what that means is that if they come up with something that the rest of Congress does not like, Congress votes THAT proposal down but dialogue ensues, explaining the sticky points so that the committee can refine and alter the next proposal that will assuredly be more palatable.

    Try this.

    Oh god, couldn’t you find a 5 second clip that would bolster your point? Expecting anyone to sit through 9 minutes of that fool’s rants, not that is unconstitutional.

    Thumb up 0

  39. CzarChasm

    Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. With all the caterwauling from both sides, you would think that if there was just a hint of legal ambiguity that a constitutional challenge would commence immediately, I’m not holding my breath.

    Wow. It’s been less than two days since the Senate passed it and Obama signed it. Are you seriously thinking there won’t even be any constitutional challenges, whether successful or not?

    Ron Paul is like that crazy uncle you keep in your basement, he was the guy that said us terminating OBL was akin to premeditated murder and that if he was president he would not have authorized the mission, what a dolt.

    Well, thanks for your opinion on a subject that has zero to do with the subject at hand. What did he say in the clip that I linked that you disagree with? Please be specific. The crazy old uncle argument doesn’t carry any weight with me.

    And although I like the judge, he has been wrong before. What he did not mention was that, yeah, the super committee’s proposals are married to a straight up and down vote, but there is no limit to the proposals put forth. So what that means is that if they come up with something that the rest of Congress does not like, Congress votes THAT proposal down but dialogue ensues, explaining the sticky points so that the committee can refine and alter the next proposal that will assuredly be more palatable.

    You’re just taking wild ass guesses at this stuff, aren’t you? Well, guess again. How does dialogue ensue when debate on Super Committee legislative proposals are limited to 10 minutes per side in the House? Is that the “dialogue” to which you refer?

    Whatever, I seriously doubt you’ve delved into the bowels of this crap sandwich, but it’s right here in case you’re interested. Everyone that I respect as a reputable commentator (no, not Olberman, that was more a joke than anything) has severe constitutionally-based problems with the Super Committee. You are offering nothing but guesses and rather silly opinions about crazy old uncles and such. Let’s see, who should I listen to, someone who poo-poos legitimate concerns about this legislation on an internet blog, or Andrew McCarthy? From Limbaugh to Levin, Hannity to Ingram, Malkin to Boortz, I haven’t heard a single conservative pundit even express ambivalence about this Super Committee, much less express support for it. And Levin is as well-versed a constitutional scholar as Judge Napolitano, yet readers here should follow you in cheer-leading for this grand compromise that the best that can be said for it is that it was better than doing nothing?

    Your problem isn’t that you are unconvinced Rich, it’s that you are unentrenched from establishment Republican sycophancy. At least that’s the way it appears to me. Others mileage may vary, as I’m sure yours does, but I call ‘em as I see ‘em, and there it is.

    Try this.

    Oh god, couldn’t you find a 5 second clip that would bolster your point? Expecting anyone to sit through 9 minutes of that fool’s rants, not that is unconstitutional.

    Sorry, I expected you might be able to figure it out the same way I did; I only quoted the title of the video. I didn’t listen to even one second of that idiot, just read the title that happened to be one of the recommended vids on the page where I found the Paul/Napolitano vid. Like I said above though, I used it as a joke. I would never rely on Olberman to really bolster any point I was trying to make. I’d have to regress back to the 60s and fry a bunch more brain cells before I’d ever consider his twaddle worthy of my serious consideration.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  40. richtaylor365 *

    Wow. It’s been less than two days since the Senate passed it and Obama signed it. Are you seriously thinking there won’t even be any constitutional challenges, whether successful or not?

    Well, instead of bellyaching about “the unfairness of it all”, let’s just wait and see. There might be a challenge, who knows? Pulling out your hair and hand wringing is never a good strategy, let’s see how it all plays out.

    Well, thanks for your opinion on a subject that has zero to do with the subject at hand

    Sure it does, if someone has been wrong before and has made stupid statements in the past, it is a good bet to not make him your oracle or go to guy for wisdom, isn’t that rather obvious?

    . Everyone that I respect as a reputable commentator

    Well, if they are “reputable commentators” then why didn’t you say so, we should must scrap the whole thing right now.

    From Limbaugh to Levin, Hannity to Ingram, Malkin to Boortz, I haven’t heard a single conservative pundit even express ambivalence about this Super Committee,

    And ya think, call me crazy, that if a Republican was president and was asking for a debt ceiling increase and had a complicit Senate as backing that they might be a little more “charitable” about their opinions in this matter, but because this is Obama’s deal, a more discerning and critical eye was applied? Yeah, couldn’t happen.

    Of all those so called experts of yours, Andrew McCarthy is to me the most worthy of that title. I respect his opinion, he may be right and some tweaking wrt a proper and accepted application of CBO projections, that’s fine.

    , yet readers here should follow you in cheer-leading for this grand compromise that the best that can be said for it is that it was better than doing nothing?

    No, this is what I said:

    You all can make up your own mind wrt the worthiness of the deal, who it benefits, and will it do anything to diminish the debt long term

    but I call ‘em as I see ‘em, and there it is.

    You call them anyway you like, but the way I see it is that your are incredibly naive about the pragmatics and realities of politics. Because the GOP owns the House, they can now strut around Washington and dictate demands, how funny. As I have tried (and all those radio experts you cite have also tried) to explain to you, the simple fact that Obama did not do what he did in Feb.2010 where he raised the debt ceiling without any GOP concessions, where now he did not raise taxes and for the first time in his life admitted and agreed to spending cuts, you can thank the TP for all of this. But like a typical neophyte who lets newly gained power go right to his head, you think you have more power then you do, you don’t. If the GOP held the WH and the Senate, then all your chest thumping would be appropriate.

    I have a more realistic view on what is and what is not possible, given the dynamics present, so does Charles Krauthammer:

    Krauthammer’s premise is simple – Republicans have successfully thwarted the Obama revolution to change this great nation for the worse and they have done so as the minority party in government. That is no minor feat and should be heralded as an accomplishment, but it is time to focus on winning the “war” – the ideological war still unfolding.

    And if the GOP can make real gains next election, then and only then can you demand the world on a silver platter, because right now you just look foolish.

    Thumb up 0

  41. CzarChasm

    Well, instead of bellyaching about “the unfairness of it all”, let’s just wait and see. There might be a challenge, who knows? Pulling out your hair and hand wringing is never a good strategy, let’s see how it all plays out.

    Fairness has absolutely nothing to do with it. If there’s any bellyaching going on, it’s about unconstitutionality, not unfairness. You do recognize that there’s a big difference, don’t you?

    Well, thanks for your opinion on a subject that has zero to do with the subject at hand

    Sure it does, if someone has been wrong before and has made stupid statements in the past, it is a good bet to not make him your oracle or go to guy for wisdom, isn’t that rather obvious?

    And so the pattern of avoidance continues. I asked you to be specific about what he said in the clip I linked that you disagree with. He was talking about the Constitution. What did he say about it that you disagree with?

    And ya think, call me crazy, that if a Republican was president and was asking for a debt ceiling increase and had a complicit Senate as backing that they might be a little more “charitable” about their opinions in this matter, but because this is Obama’s deal, a more discerning and critical eye was applied? Yeah, couldn’t happen.

    Where to start….

    First of all, this wasn’t Obama’s deal. Obama didn’t have a single one-line note on the table, and neither did Reid. They had demands, demands which Boehner et al acceded to like jellyfish. Boehner compromised only with himself from beginning to end.

    Secondly, all of the people I referred to as “reputable” opposed Bush’s drug entitlement program, and that happened with both the House and Senate in Republicans’ hands. All of those people opposed McCain/Feingold on principled constitutional grounds that turned out to be spot on once SCOTUS ruled on it, and they also roundly criticized Bush for his limp-wristed rationale for signing it into law. Your argument doesn’t hold water.

    No, this is what I said:

    You all can make up your own mind wrt the worthiness of the deal, who it benefits, and will it do anything to diminish the debt long term

    First off, when you said that in the OP you weren’t even taking into consideration the constitutional issues that are being discussed now. Since those issues have been raised however, you have launched a campaign to minimize, marginalize and avoid answering them. Nice try to make yourself appear more open to constitutional constraints on government than your brand of “conservatism” really promotes though.

    But perhaps more significantly than the obfuscatory nature of the above quote, you followed that with an untrue/inaccurate critique of what this bill actually does when you said:

    For my ownself, a glass half full kind of guy, I would back the deal. Considering that this is the first time in history that any debt increase has been coupled with spending cuts

    I’m not so incredibly naive that I can’t see that you’re taking the long-standing establishment tack of calling slowing the rate of growth an actual “spending cut.” Why would you lie to your readers like that? Or are you so incredibly naive that you actually believe that pap?

    I defy you to document one penny’s worth of actual cuts embedded in this bill that you consider a “glass half full.” It can’t be done, and you know it. Even if everything goes exactly as the bill depends on it going over the next 10 years (yeah, right), our national spending will increase by $7.6 trillion. By your rationale, I can “budget” to go buy a Lamborghini this morning for $500,000, “budget” to buy a $100,000 Rolls this afternoon, and actually go buy a $5,000 used Jeep tonight, and I have actually cut my “spending” twice by a total of 99%! That is the lie that you and Boehner and everyone who voted for this mess, including Allen West, are perpetrating on the American tax-payer.

    Just as you said you like Napolitano but he’s been wrong before, so too do I like Allen West, but he’s been wrong before and is wrong again on this. You say that people like me demand of the Tea Party that they be monolithic. Utter rubbish. We demand of them that they be honest at the very least. We demand that they stay true to the campaign promises they made to earn the votes that got them where they are. We demand that, above all else, the Constitution be the light which guides them through the morass of threats to it that they will face in their political careers.

    See Rich, it’s not that I’m naive in the least, it’s that I’m moral. It’s that my word is my bond. It’s that I’m law-abiding, and I recognize the Constitution as the highest law of the land. As such, I evaluate politicians by my own demands on myself of what I would do in the same situations. You can dismiss all that as “flowery rhetoric” if you wish, but I’ll guarantee you that until politicians of any/either party start showing some moral courage and abiding by the law that they are sworn to uphold, moral and law-abiding citizens across this nation will oppose them with every legal means available to us. And if you’re wondering what the limits of those legal means might be, you need look no further than the Declaration of Independence. The limits are spelled out unambiguously there.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  42. JimK

    I defy you to document one penny’s worth of actual cuts embedded in this bill that you consider a “glass half full.” It can’t be done, and you know it. Even if everything goes exactly as the bill depends on it going over the next 10 years (yeah, right), our national spending will increase by $7.6 trillion. By your rationale, I can “budget” to go buy a Lamborghini this morning for $500,000, “budget” to buy a $100,000 Rolls this afternoon, and actually go buy a $5,000 used Jeep tonight, and I have actually cut my “spending” twice by a total of 99%! That is the lie that you and Boehner and everyone who voted for this mess, including Allen West, are perpetrating on the American tax-payer.

    THIS.

    Reduction in growth is not a cut. It is a reduction in…growth. Which is STILL. GROWING, albeit at a reduced rate.

    Not. A. Cut. We. Need. Cuts. Period. End of discussion. The new discussion should be, how do we get real, actual cuts that physically and philosophically reduce the size, scope and reach of the massive government with which we are currently saddled?

    Thumb up 2

  43. richtaylor365 *

    Not. A. Cut. We. Need. Cuts. Period. End of discussion.

    And. You. Will. Not. Get. Any. Cuts. Until. You. Get. More. Power. End of discussion.

    The new discussion should be, how do we get real, actual cuts that physically and philosophically reduce the size, scope and reach of the massive government with which we are currently saddled?

    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, all of this is pie in the sky given the current dynamics, change the dynamics (get control of the Senate and the presidency) then it is feasible.

    Thumb up 0

  44. richtaylor365 *

    it’s about unconstitutionality, not unfairness.

    Which we have already gone over. As I said before, more than once, if it is unconstitutional then let’s wait for the challenge. Providing the opinion of the crazy uncle is not at all convincing given that he is in fact crazy. The A.M. piece was much more persuasive and it appears from that article that there is some problems with how CBO projections are used, OK, let’s see how these issues are addressed.

    First of all, this wasn’t Obama’s deal.

    Of course it was, he (and his party) was the impetus for the debt ceiling raise, their incompetence is their fiduciary responsibilities pushed them beyond the allowed limit, so they needed it raised and they came begging to the GOP. At first the GOP said “NO”, which then turned to ,”Maybe, if we get something in return”. See, it goes back to that whole power thing you still don’t get, with a GOP run house Obama is now forced to negotiate, something he never had to do before.

    Your argument doesn’t hold water.

    You really are going to attempt to sell that line that all those radio personalities are not the least bit bias in their opinions? I like most of those guys on your list and side with them on most issues but come on, don’t pretend there is no agenda here.

    Since those issues have been raised however, you have launched a campaign to minimize, marginalize and avoid answering them.

    That was not my intent. I will admit that constitutional considerations was not a factor in the post, hence no mention of it as such. It was written on the day of the agreement and I was commenting strictly on it’s content. I also admit that you provided some good links (the A.M. one especially) that calls this into question, fair enough, so lets see how it all plays out, but I was not avoiding anything.

    I’m not so incredibly naive that I can’t see that you’re taking the long-standing establishment tack of calling slowing the rate of growth an actual “spending cut.” Why would you lie to your readers like that?

    Please, let’s keep this civil, shall we? It is not a lie to look at the body of the agreement and quote what it says, the deal would cut about $900 billion in spending over the next 10 years automatically, and as much $1.5 trillion more through the special committee’s recommendations later in the year. This is what it says, if you think they are lying, then call them liars as well. The deal provides for spending cuts roughly equivalent to the amount of the debt raise, tell me, when in our history has that ever been done before? Was it done last year when Obama raised it $1.9 trillion? I understand the semantics of ,”Well, it’s not really a cut because the debt ceiling is raised as well so it’s more of a wash”. You want to cut real spending, wait till you have more power. Cut, Cap, And Balance was a nice concept, all the way up until it got strangled in the Senate. nothing significant or consequential is going to happen until there is a power change.

    it’s that I’m moral.

    Got it, more ad hominems. Here is a piece of advice, you are more persuasive and will get farther if you do not go down that path. Oh, and that is the same kind of nonsense I was calling out in the original post, that some TP folks are so strident and rigid that they are willing to murder their own to make a point, nice.

    You can dismiss all that as “flowery rhetoric” if you wish

    The flowery rhetoric that I was dismissing is your call for free markets, smaller government and reduced spending in the present environment, more naivety. When has this president ever adhered to those principals? Those are all noble endeavors, and things I would promote as well, but it ain’t gonna happen with the present power dynamic, nope, no way. For now, until the next election, I will be happy with impeding, delaying, and derailing any further attempts at increasing the size and scope of government.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Mississippi Yankee

    Although I placed this comment on the Boosh’s fault post it fits here just as well.

    Does anyone remember a few weeks ago when All of the moderates and compromisers insisted that to not raise the debt ceiling would wreck our credit rating and ruin our economy?
    Yeah, you know who you are…

    Well can someone ‘splain how this happened… I mean in terms other that “it’s bush’s fault” or “that damn Tea Party”

    BTW this was TODAY 8-5-11. It’s what called a Friday news drop.

    S&P warned White House of imminent downgrade

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s served the Obama administration with notice Friday afternoon that it planned to downgrade the U.S. government’s AAA credit rating, an administration official told CNN.

    Thumb up 1

  46. CzarChasm

    See, it goes back to that whole power thing you still don’t get

    I get what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with you, and so will not allow you to dictate how I must view and/or state the subjects being discussed. What I also get is that you’re an insufferable condescending, arrogant ass.

    Your argument doesn’t hold water.

    You really are going to attempt to sell that line that all those radio personalities are not the least bit bias in their opinions? I like most of those guys on your list and side with them on most issues but come on, don’t pretend there is no agenda here.

    Where did I say that the pundits I named are free of bias and/or agendas? They’re conservative pundits. By definition they’re biased towards conservatism to one degree or another. Duh.

    But as per your pattern so far in this discussion, you’re off the rails trying to argue something that was neither stated or implied by me. I only said about them that they all had/have legitimate and well-articulated constitutional objections to the Super Committee. If they were liberals and had the same constitutional objections (as if!), I would consider their views as principled and legitimate even though I vociferously disagree with their overall agenda.

    I will admit that constitutional considerations was not a factor in the post, hence no mention of it as such. It was written on the day of the agreement and I was commenting strictly on it’s content.

    No you weren’t. You completely ignored the most egregious fault with this mess, the Super Committee. You promulgated the lie that this crap sandwich actually cuts spending. Further, you were issuing threats to anyone who found fault with Allen West and folks like him who portrayed themselves as being in favor of smaller government, smaller debts, less taxes and more freedom from governmental intrusions in our personal lives, but when the rubber met the road this time (and in the renewal of Patriot Act provisions), he was obviously not what he portrayed himself as. Let’s see, how did you put it? Oh yeah, here it is:

    I understand the need for bluster, and this is politics, I understand that, but I’m going to be watching those TP folks come next election and if I even smell any disloyalty on their part towards one of the finest Representatives in the country, and their prints are on the weapon that got him axed, not only will they have killed any of my support, ever, but I will do whatever I can to marginalize them and relegate them to the corner where the LSM put them already, the crazy fringe corner.

    So you’ll join the leftist media in trying to marginalize conservatives who hold true to their (loudly) stated ideals, but you have the gall to accuse us of being monolithic. Allen West is alright in my book, but he screwed the pooch on this one, and if it costs him his seat in Congress, well, so be it, it ain’t his seat to begin with, it’s The People’s. But you’d punish people for deciding for themselves if he’s the best person to serve as their representative. It really is quite shocking to see someone who claims to be a conservative threatening a nationwide grass roots movement just because a small percentage of them who live in West’s district might vote him out for not adequately representing their interests. The more likely scenario is that all will be forgiven come Nov. 2012 and he’ll be sent back. But that won’t help your credibility as a “conservative” for anyone with an intact memory. Threatening the most consistent, vocal and activist group within the conservative movement certainly calls into question your conservative bona fides. I think you might be a leftist shill.

    I’m not so incredibly naive that I can’t see that you’re taking the long-standing establishment tack of calling slowing the rate of growth an actual “spending cut.” Why would you lie to your readers like that?

    Please, let’s keep this civil, shall we? It is not a lie to look at the body of the agreement and quote what it says, the deal would cut about $900 billion in spending over the next 10 years automatically, and as much $1.5 trillion more through the special committee’s recommendations later in the year. This is what it says, if you think they are lying, then call them liars as well.

    Dude, you’re a mess. How is it uncivil to call a lie a lie? And implicit in what I said in that regard is that your boy Boehner et al are indeed liars too if they claim that this bill actually cuts spending in any way, shape, manner or form. It cuts growth, period. And the messiest part of this quote is that you already admitted that in just the previous post to the one I’m replying to here!

    JimK said:
    Not. A. Cut. We. Need. Cuts. Period. End of discussion.

    richtaylor365 said:
    And. You. Will. Not. Get. Any. Cuts. Until. You. Get. More. Power. End of discussion.

    So were you lying to your readers all along in saying that this bill made actual cuts, or were you lying when you said that no cuts will happen until we get more power? I know the answer, but I seriously question whether or not you do.

    it’s that I’m moral.

    Got it, more ad hominems.

    What the??? Ad hominems against who? Against you? If that’s what you mean, you’re crazy as a shithouse rat. Take one sentence out of a paragraph that talked about high ideals and demands and expectations of one’s self (me, not you) and turn it into an attack on someone else? Yep, you’re a hot ghetto mess dude.

    Here is a piece of advice, you are more persuasive and will get farther if you do not go down that path. Oh, and that is the same kind of nonsense I was calling out in the original post, that some TP folks are so strident and rigid that they are willing to murder their own to make a point, nice.

    Now my expectations and demands upon myself are tantamount to murdering my own??? You make threats against voters who might not vote the way you want them to, and I level legitimate criticisms of politicians who are solidly on record as supporting concepts and ideals that this (and other) legislation is completely counter to, and I’m the strident one??? I’m on the fringe???

    And by the way, just who the Hell are you to be giving me advice on how to conduct myself here anyway hot-shot? As far as I know, this is JimK’s site, and from what I can tell, he agrees with me on the issues being discussed here. At least he agrees with me in part, and I haven’t seen any evidence of him agreeing with you at all, so save the condescension. If you don’t like the word “lie,” then don’t tell lies! It’s pretty damned simple. You say above that you “quoted” what was said in the bill. That’s another lie! You haven’t quoted it at all, and in fact, have grossly misstated parts of it. I even gave you a link to the whole bill so you wouldn’t embarrass yourself with misstatements about it anymore. Apparently you can’t be bothered with actually digging into it though. You seem perfectly happy to take Boehner’s and Ryan’s and I guess Allen West’s word(s) for what’s in it. Well guess what genius? They lied to you!!! They’re politicians, and all politicians lie when it suits their purposes. A simple test for internet commentators is looking to see if they are capable of recognizing when they’re being lied to, and on that score, you’re either knowingly and willingly pushing their lies, or you have failed the recognition test. Since you already admitted to at least one of their lies, and then backtracked in your next reply to me and pushed the same lie all over again, I can only conclude it’s the former. I think you might be a leftist shill, really. And not a very good one.

    For now, until the next election, I will be happy with impeding, delaying, and derailing any further attempts at increasing the size and scope of government.

    Yeah, right, by supporting a complete travesty of a bill replete with extra-constitutional and outright unconstitutional provisions, you’re helping to limit the size and scope of government. Got it.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  47. CzarChasm

    Yep Yankee, this debt ceiling bill really saved this country from a catastrophe, didn’t it though? And when that Super
    Committee starts messing around with everything from gun control to raising taxes to state funded abortions, we’ll really know what a mess Boehner, Ryan, West et al got us into. We’re in for a rough ride from here on out.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  48. Mississippi Yankee

    I haven’t seen anyone put it better than ‘dick not quite dead white guy’ over @ KisP:

    Heh. There goes Boehner’s budget cut ‘savings’. Poof. All gone. And then some.
    Well now. How many pension funds have rules that forbid ownership of anything with less than AAA rating? They will have to divest themselves of Treasuries. And who will buy them? At what price? Unions, kiss your pensions goodbye.
    Rumor is that the Fed is already buying 70% of them, so now will the Fed buy them all? At what discount? How will they pay for them? Print money. QE3, QE4? The house of cards is collapsing. Get out of dollars folks.

    Thumb up 1

  49. CzarChasm

    QE3 was starting to cross the lips of Obammunists almost as soon as the Senate passed the phony debt bill. It’s coming, no doubt.

    And I feel like I have to reply to myself above as I thought of the real reason Obama and Reid handled the “compromise debate” the way they did. Not only is this Boehner’s boner, along with Ryan and McConnell et al, but Reid and Obama are gonna come out smellin’ like a rose, and they won’t even have to lie about it. They literally had nothing to do with writing, or even directing or influencing really, this bill. It’s totally a product of GOP wandering through their pea-brains looking for a cogent thought, and coming up short. I’m not saying that Obama is unbeatable, or the Senate will necessarily stay Dem-onic, but if either loses, it won’t be because of this deal. Only the Republicrats can lose from this deal.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  50. richtaylor365 *

    I just don’t agree with you, and so will not allow you to dictate how I must view and/or state the subjects being discussed.

    I’m not dictating anything, quit being so defensive. I am offering an opinion, just like you.

    As far as the rest of your last comment, it is all rehash of stuff we have been over. I understand that all your radio personalities you mentioned don’t like the deal, I wasn’t that fond of it myself but felt that given the power dynamics present, I thought it was the best we could do, so did Charles K:

    The Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm calls it “regrettably insufficient.” Of course it is. That’s what happens when you control only half a branch. But the plan’s achievements are significant. It is all cuts, no taxes. It establishes the precedent that debt-ceiling increases must be accompanied by equal spending cuts. And it provides half a year to both negotiate more fundamental reform (tax and entitlement) and keep the issue of debt reduction constantly in the public eye.

    I understand constitutional questions raised about the super committee. You keep saying I am ignoring this when we have been discussing it the whole time. I was not aware of these when I first wrote the original post, as admitted. But given the size of those in opposition, if any of these claims are legitimate then I have faith that it will be addressed and rectified.
    I understand the semantics of when it a cut really a cut and when is it just impeding the rate of spending. This plan has cuts present that are nearly equal to the amount of the raise, does it solve the problem, of course not, the rate of the deficit spending is still unchecked. But as already stated, where as before the debt ceiling raise would be clean, now it has some cuts attached to it, not sufficient but better then past precedent.
    And regarding TP traitors like Allen West, we disagree on protocol. My complaint in the original post was that there does exist an elements in the TP that is willing to murder their own for principal, to punish those that do not move in lock step, hence the move to unseat him come next election. I think this attitude is nuts. This is the type of monolithic thinking I was against, all over one vote. Rand Paul, another prominent TP guy voted against the deal, I still respect him for voting his convictions and will not work to throw him under the bus because of this one vote. That is where I think you and other TP folks go off the rails. Calling folks traitors or “I’m moral, you’re not” is not productive. I would like to see the TP grow both in numbers and influence, that is not going to happen with all the infighting going on. A respect for those that want the same things but have different opinions on how to obtain must, must exist.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CzarChasm

    I’m only going to reply to three short things you said above, Rich. The first is this:

    I understand the semantics of when it a cut really a cut and when is it just impeding the rate of spending.

    First of all, this bill doesn’t impede “the rate of spending” one iota, it only has the potential to impede the rate of growth. It is unreal that you can so cavalierly slough off a lie as nothing more than a semantics argument. This proves that you are beyond reasoning with. You are still arguing that I cut my *spending* by changing up my *budget* when I decided not to buy that $500,000 Lamborghini that I never even put one thin dime’s worth of deposit on. The indisputable truth is that I simply slowed the output of money to more closely reflect a realistic income so I could afford to pay for the $5,000 Jeep. There are no semantics in the world that can spin it into being truthful to say I cut my spending by 99%. None.

    And secondly….

    And regarding TP traitors like Allen West….

    Two very important things here. One, I have not referred to anyone, including, or more on-point, especially, not Allen West, as a traitor at all. I have disagreed with his vote on the debt deal and tied that disagreement directly to his campaign promises. I said that his constituents will decide whether or not that was an egregious enough betrayal to vote him out, and even opined that the likelihood is that all will be forgiven and he’ll be sent back. I didn’t express an opinion on that happenstance at all, and really don’t even have an opinion on it. I don’t live in Florida, much less the 22nd District, and how the people vote who do live there is none of my concern. How West votes in Congress is only a concern to me in the context of juxtaposing his campaign promises against those votes and having the right to state my opinion(s) as to how well (or not) they align, and that’s all I’ve done. I probably never would’ve mentioned his name specifically if not for the fact that you brought it up in the context of making threats against anyone who disagreed with his vote, or anyone who dared to use their own votes to express dissatisfaction with their representative’s votes! So if you want to look for inappropriate responses to national political events and people, look no further than your own damned mirror!

    And lastly….

    Calling folks traitors or “I’m moral, you’re not” is not productive.

    Let me tell you what is not productive hot-shot. Putting quotations around a sentence that I never uttered is not only not productive, it’s just one more in a string of lies that you apparently think everyone reading is too stupid to discern as such. Here is what I said about my morality in defense of your insipid repetitions of accusing me of being naive:

    See Rich, it’s not that I’m naive in the least, it’s that I’m moral. It’s that my word is my bond. It’s that I’m law-abiding, and I recognize the Constitution as the highest law of the land. As such, I evaluate politicians by my own demands on myself of what I would do in the same situations.

    You not only do me the disservice of trying to distill that down to nothing more than a self-serving, pat-myself-on-the-back at someone else’s expense statement, but you actually put quotation marks around it as though that’s what I actually said.

    Now since you have brought the “I’m moral” quote up at least twice and seem to think your indignation is righteous about the audacity I’ve shown in uttering it, please explain how I should go about evaluating politicians’ worthiness for my support if I don’t juxtapose their morals, honesty, dedication to the Constitution etc. against my own? What on Earth could be wrong with what I said there that you won’t let it go even after I’ve tried to explain it?

    But regardless of your answer to the last question, there’s also no semantics argument here. You won’t get away with saying the quotation marks don’t mean what quotation marks mean. So far you have claimed to have quoted from this piece of shit bill when you have done no such thing at all, and you have quoted me as saying things I’ve never said, nor did I even imply. I simply shared my process for evaluating the politicians and/or their votes after several posts in a row by you suggested that the only explanation for my disagreeing with you is either that I don’t get it or I’m naive. Well, both accusations are total bunk. I have deeply-held and well-defined convictions underpinning every opinion I’ve expressed in this thread, while you condescend in support of the lies of professional liars as some kind of victory for conservatism. Your brand of conservatism is exactly what got us to where we are today. Just admit it, you’re an establishment guy, a business as usual guy. Whether you’re honest with yourself or not, it’s patently obvious to anyone still reading. It is clearly you who doesn’t get it pal.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  52. Manwhore

    You not only do me the disservice of trying to distill that down to nothing more than a self-serving, pat-myself-on-the-back at someone else’s expense statement, but you actually put quotation marks around it as though that’s what I actually said.

    Blatant douchery, no doubt about it. I dealt with it for years. rich revels and hides behind being a cop. his posts are somewhat smarter because he writes speeding tickets.

    Not to me,but there is no accounting for taste.

    Thumb up 2

  53. CzarChasm

    I dealt with it for years. rich revels and hides behind being a cop.

    Oh. My. God. A cop that thinks it’s just semantics to lie to the public that you’re cutting spending when all you’re doing is projecting a slow down in budget growth that will likely never even happen? I wonder if he realizes that quoting somebody inaccurately on a police report would be an act of perjury. That might also explain why he seems so unconcerned about the constitutional issues surrounding the Super Committee. I’m sure the Patriot Act has made his job much easier too, and West’s support for it may be a resume enhancer in Rich’s eyes rather than a valid knock on the guy. Thanks Manwhore, you have helped me to understand a lot about the illogical and superiority-laden tone of this discussion.

    CC

    Thumb up 2

  54. CzarChasm

    Just a correction to the above post before rich (or anyone else for that matter) tries to make me out a liar. In my first post in this thread, I said in response to rich’s threats against Tea Partiers who go after West and other TP supporters of the “Dirty Dozen Faux Debt Ceiling Act of 2011″ the following:

    If the Tea Party ends up supporting the traitors that support this crap bill…

    In the above post, I mistakenly stated:

    I have not referred to anyone….as a traitor at all.

    Oops. I forgot that I used that bit of hyperbole in my first post, so I hereby retract the claim that I didn’t. Other than that, I stand by the above post.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  55. richtaylor365 *

    CC, I’ll let you have the last word on this if you like because as I said before, its all rehash really, but a couple quick things. The Moral quote I used by you was nothing nefarious, just sloppy punctuation on my part, I did not catch it. What I meant was “I’m moral”, you’re not, but when you elevate yourself, standing on your moral pedestal, it infers that others aren’t, not very persuasive, but I did make a mistake.

    And as far as what I did as a profession in the past, I worked a number of job titles for the state. I worked in Budgets and Procurements and in Investigations way more years then on the street. But I expect MW would offer up personal stuff beyond what good manners would authorize him to do. I guess tit for tat would compel me to offer up what he does for as a profession, who he works for, and some rather juicy stuff in his past…………I’ll pass.

    Thumb up 0

  56. CzarChasm

    What I meant was “I’m moral”, you’re not, but when you elevate yourself, standing on your moral pedestal, it infers that others aren’t, not very persuasive, but I did make a mistake.

    You’re amazingly obtuse rich. You can repeatedly claim to know things about me that you couldn’t possibly know to be true (“incredibly naive” etc.), and have no problem whatsoever repeatedly dismissing my explanation for using two words that only I could know the truth of, and make it out to be something other than what I intended no matter how many times I explain it. Again, this is what I said:

    See Rich, it’s not that I’m naive in the least, it’s that I’m moral. It’s that my word is my bond. It’s that I’m law-abiding, and I recognize the Constitution as the highest law of the land. As such, I evaluate politicians by my own demands on myself of what I would do in the same situations.

    And again I ask, please explain how I should go about evaluating politicians’ worthiness for my support if I don’t juxtapose their morals, honesty, dedication to the Constitution etc. against my own? What on Earth could be wrong with what I said there that you won’t let it go even after I’ve tried to explain it three times now?

    Is there something wrong with making a conscious decision to lead a moral life? Or is it only wrong to say that you’ve made that decision out loud? If a politician assured me that their devotion to morality came before all else, I sure as Hell wouldn’t criticize them for it, and I sure as Hell would be more apt to give them the benefit of the doubt knowing that morality is important to them. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with having morality at the forefront of one’s life? Until you can explain what’s wrong with what I said, I won’t just let you get away with mischaracterizing it as some self-serving, holier-than-thou blather. It wasn’t that at all. It was a component of the formula I use to determine who is worthy of my support. That’s it.

    And really dude, you should learn to use the English language. I can’t “infer” something that I say. Only you can infer something from what I say. To infer means to surmise, to interpret. You might think I implied something, but for the third time now, what YOU inferred from whatever YOU think I implied, is just flat out wrong.

    CC

    Thumb up 0

  57. richtaylor365 *

    , holier-than-thou blather

    right, because you are the moral one.

    Seriously, dude, do you realize how lame that is, saying that you are moral and others aren’t? That is the blanket the looniest of the leftists wrap themselves in to justify all their social programs, Obamacare and stealing money from those to give to those that don’t have as much, because it is the moral thing to do. Jesus, ask any progressive and they will go to the moral well at the drop of a hat. Whether you do in fact lead a moral life has nothing whatsoever to do with this post, and it certainly does not enter into the world of politics where I doubt there is a politician alive that would not include Moral on his resume.

    And far as this:

    As such, I evaluate politicians by my own demands on myself of what I would do in the same situations.

    Isn’t that nice? Tell me, is there anyone in the country that would not claim the same test, or do you think you are special? Wouldn’t any voter evaluate politicians the same way, or do you think you are more moral then say someone who votes strictly on who has better hair or the hottest wife? And since that had absolutely nothing to do with the post, I guess you threw that in to garner some admiration. I brought up specific sentiment from some TP folks that voiced distaste in West on this one vote and asked whether it was a good idea for the TP to turn on their own so easily.

    I said that his constituents will decide whether or not that was an egregious enough betrayal to vote him out, and even opined that the likelihood is that all will be forgiven and he’ll be sent back.

    Well, naturally it is up to the voters of his district, thanks for the civics lesson, but I was asking if anyone here thought that a yes vote on this specific deal warranted a concerted TP effort to oust him.

    And as far that nonsense about what you did or did not infer, seriously, when you make statements that you are moral, law abiding, and recognize the Constitution, that places a separation from those that are not all those things, that is what it infers.

    Thumb up 0

  58. JimK

    Seriously, dude, do you realize how lame that is, saying that you are moral and others aren’t?

    Did he actually say that? Because I only saw half of that accusation. He said he was moral. Full stop.

    This illustrates a HUGE problem on this site. People react too often to what they ASSUME someone said rather than the actual words in front of their eyes.

    Just saying. It’d clear up a lot of bullshit if we only replied to each other based on what the words in front of us say versus what we infer and assume.

    Thumb up 1

  59. CzarChasm

    Seriously, dude, do you realize how lame that is, saying that you are moral and others aren’t?

    Well, again, that’s not at all what I said, but since we’re playing pretend that both of us understands the English language, let’s just go with the inference that you claim I implied.

    If a given politician makes promises that gets him elected, and then breaks those promises once in office, is that just as moral of a person as one who would go to the ends of the earth to uphold a promise?

    If a given politician swears an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and then votes in favor of one or more bills that blatantly violate that document, are they just as moral as someone who would protect the honor of his oath to his dying breath?

    Given that the Constitution that those politicians and LEOs swear an oath to is the highest law of the land, can it rightfully be said that they are law-abiding when they pass or enforce unconstitutional laws that steal people’s freedoms at the point of a government gun?

    If what I said is lame, I can only umm…infer that you feel you’d come up short if judged by the same criteria. Otherwise, you’d shrug your shoulders and think to yourself, Oh, you’re a moral man too. Great, nice to “meet” you.

    That is the blanket the looniest of the leftists wrap themselves in to justify all their social programs, Obamacare and stealing money from those to give to those that don’t have as much, because it is the moral thing to do.

    Well that’s a rather odd ending to that part of your diatribe, because I consider all those social programs to be among the most immoral things that our government is involved in. It’s legalized theft, and it is not provided for in the Constitution, which makes it illegal to boot as far as I’m concerned. They engender dependency and laziness, not independence, self-reliance and industriousness.

    So if a loony leftist claims morality on that basis, I challenge them to justify it, and then I justify my moral stance on the issue. Maybe they listen, maybe they don’t, but I am no less moral just because some Marxist bastard claims morality for a 180 degree opposite stand than the one I take. In short, I don’t give one good crap about leftists. I thought I was talking to a conservative. That’s what you are, right? Or are you a shrill leftist shill?

    Whether you do in fact lead a moral life has nothing whatsoever to do with this post

    And neither does your accusation that I’m “incredibly naive,” nor does the fact that your panties continue to be all bunched up for post after post after post after vapid, insipid post because I deign to defend against the accusation by explaining that it’s not naivety that leads me to conclude whatever I do about a given politician, it’s a well thought-out process that morality plays a part of.

    Tell me, is there anyone in the country that would not claim the same test, or do you think you are special?

    I guess that would depend on how many moral people got tired enough of repeatedly being accused of not getting it or being naive and felt they needed to explain in plain terms where the accuser was going wrong. But special? No. I know lots of moral folk. I’m not special.

    Wouldn’t any voter evaluate politicians the same way, or do you think you are more moral then say someone who votes strictly on who has better hair or the hottest wife?

    Is that really a serious question? Let’s see….does it take an application of moral judgment to vote *strictly* on who has better hair or who has the hottest wife? Why no, I don’t think morality plays into that equation at all.

    Does it take an application of moral judgment to research a politician’s record, determine to the extent possible if s/he leads a reasonably moral life, weigh his/her moral courage against the times if/when s/he displayed moral turpitude and evaluate their worthiness of my support? Why yes, yes it does. So yeah, I’m much more concerned with the morality involved in casting my vote than someone who only goes for the hair or the hotness of the ol’ lady. It’s about the dumbest question I’ve ever fielded on the internet, but you asked, so there ya go.

    And since that had absolutely nothing to do with the post, I guess you threw that in to garner some admiration.

    Nope. For what seems like about the hundredth time explaining it now, I threw that in to explain why naivety has nothing to do with my evaluations of politicians. I have a formula, a process of evaluation. I am not naive and I do *get* everything you’ve said about West, or the bill, or whatever else you condescendingly accused me of not getting or being naive about, I just don’t agree with you. After being told not to be concerned about the Super Committee and subsequently learning that you didn’t know squat about it, but still felt intellectually superior enough to pound out “naive, you don’t get it, blah blah blah” at every opportunity, I tried to counter those accusations with the truth. When the nuclear wedgie that that truth has caused you subsides, you’ll read back over this and realize what a petty minutia-monger you have been throughout this. That is, if you are capable of honest introspection, which, at this point, I certainly wouldn’t place any bets on.

    Well, naturally it is up to the voters of his district, thanks for the civics lesson, but I was asking if anyone here thought that a yes vote on this specific deal warranted a concerted TP effort to oust him.

    Well yeah, among other things you did ask that. See, among the threats to the voters of his district (which I assume you are not one of?) and the lie that there was one single penny’s worth of cuts in the bill, and the total and complete ignorance about the Super Committee, that question got kinda lost in the shuffle. So OK, I’ll answer that question now, since as you say, we’ve been over the other stuff already and I honestly can’t tell if you’ve learned anything or not.

    For me, one vote by Allen West specifically would not be enough to dissuade me from voting for him. Like I said from the beginning, I like the guy, and I have no doubt that he has copious amounts of guts. If he were my Congressman, I would write him a letter and tell him that I was very disappointed in this vote, explain in detail why, and tell him that because of that vote I will hereafter be watching him more closely, so if he wants my continued support, he better watch his constitutional P’s and Q’s.

    Having said that, I also said from the beginning that this is not his first vote against liberty (“against liberty” defined as anything that I consider blatantly unconstitutional). He supported the Patriot Act, which means he supports no-knock warrants, roving wiretaps, “border” checkpoints that are as far as 100 miles North of the border, the nearly complete repeal by fiat of the probable cause clause of the 4th Amendment, and the TSA abuses that are one of the few consequences of the Patriot Act that is actually seen and fairly often discussed in national media. His vote for the Patriot Act renewal coupled with his vote for the “Dirty Dozen” Commission probably would make me think long and hard before voting for him again. Don’t piss your pants rich, but I consider such highfalutin ideals as adhering to the Constitution and upholding one’s oath to same before I cast my vote for them. I sure hope that doesn’t start another series of vituperative castigations from you bemoaning my impertinence in claiming to be law-abiding and, therefore, justified in expecting my representatives in government to be also.

    Jeesh. Are you done now?

    CC

    Thumb up 3

  60. richtaylor365 *

    Did he actually say that?

    OK, fair enough, I apologize for assuming a wrong inference. Given that the discussion was about Allen West not following his TP marching orders and CC made statements of:

    We demand of them that they be honest at the very least. We demand that they stay true to the campaign promises they made to earn the votes that got them where they are. We demand that, above all else, the Constitution be the light which guides them through the morass of threats to it that they will face in their political careers.

    A distinction was clearly made between someone who does not adhere to these principals , some one not honest and himself, who he describes as moral.

    But if I interpreted this wrong, then that is on me.

    Thumb up 0

  61. CzarChasm

    And as far that nonsense about what you did or did not infer, seriously, when you make statements that you are moral, law abiding, and recognize the Constitution, that places a separation from those that are not all those things, that is what it infers.

    Sorry professor, but the word you’re looking for is “implies.” You infer from what you think I imply. Them’s the rules of the English language. Look it up before you embarrass yourself again. Or heck, don’t, because your illiteracy is becoming almost as entertaining as your idiocy.

    CC

    Thumb up 1

  62. Manwhore

    I’m really with cc on this. At it’s core (and after reflecting) I do find it morally disingenuous for some government employee, who has nothing to lose to tell me the way the shit is.

    The morality argument makes a lot of sense because it helps to explain where the courage of words lacks conviction. I guess if I get outed against my will I will have to accept it. Didn’t know that was how this place rolls so I’ll keep it in mind. We all should.

    Thumb up 0

  63. JimK

    Okay. I’m going to ask rather than assume. When you say “outed against your will” what does that mean? At first read I thought you were complaining about being banned again. But if you mean someone knows who you are/what you do and is going to blab that on the blog?

    NOT. FUCKING. ACCEPTABLE. That person would earn themselves a quick banning were that the case. I understand keeping your professional life out of political blogs.

    So if that’s what you meant, I’d ask that you not assume “this place rolls” like that.

    BUT.

    If you’re going to use someone’s personal life and career as a means of constantly attacking them over and over again? You don’t fucking deserve the protection I am giving you. And you fucking know it. So grow up and stop being a cunt. You’re getting the protection because that’s how *I* roll. Even if you are a miserable hypocrite who doesn’t deserve it, it’s *my* belief that the exchange of ideas here is better served if people don’t fear their real life/job will suffer for it.

    Thumb up 1

  64. Manwhore

    Hmmm. Well, I never added my life to the mix. However, your author has taken pride in posting under his personal name, ad even more pride in posting his career and experience. All things I’m cool with but for those that would prefer to be anons…not really fair to do. Some prided themselves by name and association. If there ever were an ask to keep that anon, trust me, I am the one to keep true to that promise.

    I feel it’s a little disingenuous to want anons after telling the world “I am this, this is my history, and this is who I am.” I do honor that shit, check my blog. I only go after what I know is on the table, and if you have authors that are now anti that, I need to know.

    It’s not fair to ask me to know something that isn’t possible to know until said. Sure, now rich wants some anon, was that ever vocalized? Before (and there are many posts) his name on the Internet was there for people to know. His profession the same. If it’s now a taboo subject a heads up is better than a threat and accusation.

    I do, and have protected anonymity and profession for anyone at the vo. It was never a question here until i heard it was on the table. Lee and I never even did that (look through the archives).

    So, if that’s how we roll, so be it. It should be a disclaimer that this might happen, because otherwise having ip addresses and personal info at your disposal is unfair. Rich was upfront with the info and shared it. If he feels everyone should be heldmtmthis candle and wants to exercise it, shouldn’t the blog be updated?

    Thumb up 0

  65. Manwhore

    And as far as what I did as a profession in the past, I worked a number of job titles for the state. I worked in Budgets and Procurements and in Investigations way more years then on the street. But I expect MW would offer up personal stuff beyond what good manners would authorize him to do. I guess tit for tat would compel me to offer up what he does for as a profession, who he works for, and some rather juicy stuff in his past…………I’ll pass.

    For the sake of the conversation this is the quote I am referring. When I say “is this how this blog rolls?” this is what I am referring to. I am not inferring.this seems to be very explicit in implication.w

    Thumb up 0

  66. JimK

    Jesus CHRIST you are one annoying little cunt.

    That is not, and will never be, the policy of this blog. If Rich outs you, he’s gone. If ANYONE outs your professional details, real name, etc., they’re gone.

    HOW FUCKING CLEAR DO I HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU STOP ACCUSING THE BLOG OF HAVING A NEW POLICY?

    That having been said, it’s pretty lame that you get to be protected while you insist on using aspects of Rich’s life just to attack him and be an asshole, rather than argue things on the merits. Does that mean I’ll allow you to be outed? NO. IT DOESN’T. What it means is I don’t respect you and I think you’re a fucking pussy.

    There has been no change on the concept of protecting people’s personal information should they so choose. Period. End of discussion.

    Thumb up 0

  67. CzarChasm

    For the sake of the conversation this is the quote I am referring. When I say “is this how this blog rolls?” this is what I am referring to. I am not inferring.this seems to be very explicit in implication.w

    And might I commend you for keeping your inferences and implications in the proper syntax. So far in this thread it has been a rarity. ;-)~

    Carry on.

    CC

    Thumb up 0