ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, January 25, 2014

Suckering the liberty-minded

After eight years of attacking libertarians more furiously than anyone in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party is trying to play them for suckers:
Liberty Republicans. They are the young, more libertarian-minded, grassroots supporters that used to be identified chiefly by their favorite Republican presidential candidate, former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Now, as the Republican National Committee tries to repair relationships and increase outreach to all political groups, they are doing their best to entice more libertarian Republicans into the fold.

Some of these supporters were turned off by what was described as the "railroading" of Ron Paul supporters by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus during the 2012 convention in Tampa.

But the RNC wants to appear welcoming to the libertarian element in their party, which more established members of the party once derided as "Paultards" after they disrupted events in favor of their candidate.
Remember, the Republican Party elite have successfully been playing social conservatives for suckers since 1980. Now, after twice seeing their "electable" RINOs prove that they were anything but, they're trying to make nice and pretend that they aren't the Big Government "conservatives" that they have shown themselves to be since the first Bush '43 administration.

Don't buy it. Republicans are nothing but Democrats with a pseudo-conservative PR department.

Labels:

202 Comments:

1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous farmer Tom January 25, 2014 12:12 PM  

AMEN!!!

Anonymous jack January 25, 2014 12:13 PM  

Yeah, pretty much. I'm planning to talk to my state Tea Party folk and consider who [or what] to vote for.

Note: Finished The Name of the Rose. That was interesting. It reinforced some negative feelings I've had for the RCC for decades. Aside from that the story was exciting and the climax was hard hitting. Much to think about there. Makes you want to read Aristotle. An Eco book is definitely not something you might read rapidly. Pendulum next....

Anonymous WinstonWebb January 25, 2014 12:16 PM  

"But the RNC wants to appear welcoming to the libertarian element in their party..."

This is true.

Anonymous ck January 25, 2014 12:19 PM  

Vox: Do what would it take for you to support the GOP and/or Sen. Paul running for President?

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2014 12:29 PM  

The Hundred Flowers Campaign, also termed the Hundred Flowers Movement, (simplified Chinese: 百花运动; traditional Chinese: 百花運動; pinyin: Bǎihuā yùndòng) was a period in 1956 in the People's Republic of China[1] during which the Communist Party of China (CPC) encouraged its citizens to openly express their opinions of the communist regime. Differing views and solutions to national policy were encouraged based on the famous expression by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong: "The policy of letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend is designed to promote the flourishing of the arts and the progress of science."[2][3] After this brief period of liberalization, Mao abruptly changed course. The crackdown continued through 1957 as an Anti-Rightist Campaign against those who were critical of the regime and its ideology. Those targeted were publicly criticized and condemned to prison labor camps.[4] Mao remarked at the time that he had "enticed the snakes out of their caves."[4][5]

Blogger Krul January 25, 2014 12:35 PM  

Disgusting. The NeoCons are whores, selling out their principles for "electability".

But even if they were principled, they wouldn't get my support. They're not conservatives, they're Trotskyite imperialists following Leo Strauss and Bill Kristol. I won't give a drop of support for their garbage.

Anonymous Giraffe January 25, 2014 12:35 PM  

Finished The Name of the Rose. That was interesting. It reinforced some negative feelings I've had for the RCC for decades. Aside from that the story was exciting and the climax was hard hitting. Much to think about there. Makes you want to read Aristotle. An Eco book is definitely not something you might read rapidly. Pendulum next....

I just read it for the third time. Eco can sure make me feel stupid.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 12:38 PM  

Oh, I don't know. The schism within the Republican party lies along the lines of the entrenched good old boys network elitists vs. libertarians. A Scott Walker/Ben Carson ticket might be a reasonable compromise toward furthering a libertarian shift in the Republican party agenda. In my book, Walker has a few good things going for him not the least of which are that he didn't graduate university, he is a nondenominational evangelical and willing to stand up to the teachers union. Carson is a smart Christian AND black. Looks like a perfect VP candidate for this cycle to me.

Anonymous McMitt January 25, 2014 12:50 PM  

The vested interest of leaders of the GOP is in maintaining the status quo.

If they have to do it by appearing to be bumbling, stumbling stooges with out a spine,... well then so be it.

Outsiders, agitators, and visionaries need not apply.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 12:54 PM  

I'm a tad more sanguine. Not much, but a tad. I don't think that mainstream conservatism, much less Neo-Reactionary traditionalism, will ever win via mass democracy, but the fact that a major political party seems to have figured out that they can't simply continue as they have in the past is a positive development nonetheless.

As for Eco, anyone who judges the condemning of heretics very harshly needs to have a closer look at who heretics actually are. Don't forget that Islam and modern leftism are both essentially Christian heresies - the latter being more or less a sexed-up, Christless Christianity. And let's not forget what happened in Munster in 1534. The portrayal of the Church as a bunch of mean old sticks-in-the-mud who were ready to burn at the stake anyone who was mildly offbeat is mostly an Enlightenment slander. Real heretics tend to be extremely dangerous, and real heresies, left unchecked, tend to get a lot of people killed.

Blogger Outlaw X January 25, 2014 12:58 PM  

Thy can kiss my f**king ass. Them bastards have been trying to rail road us since Nixon and Ford.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 1:03 PM  

Carson is a smart Christian AND black. Looks like a perfect VP candidate for this cycle to me.

Crackers for Carson is the new Honkeys for Herman.

Carson is a complete non-starter, being a gun grabber.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 1:06 PM  

latter being more or less a sexed-up, Christless Christianity

Yep. I figure an amendment to formalize every persons inalienable right to gratuitous sexual pleasure absent consequence will be offered up by someone on the left sooner or later. We're halfway there now.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 1:10 PM  

A Scott Walker/Ben Carson ticket might be a reasonable compromise toward furthering a libertarian shift in the Republican party agenda.

To quote the legendary raiderjoe, is poster drunk?

Libertarians don't care about either of those guys. A Walker-Carson ticket would be just the 2016 version of a Romney-Cain ticket.

Blogger Kallmunz January 25, 2014 1:17 PM  

The Republican party gleefully vilified Paul and his allies and continue to do so such as last Thursday on Leno. If these "Liberty Republicans" are to be taken seriously, they must turn the guns around. They should openly and loudly declare, "We refuse to work with you as long as anyone remotely resembling Boehner is Speaker, fire him and we'll talk."

Anonymous VD January 25, 2014 1:18 PM  

Carson is a smart Christian AND black. Looks like a perfect VP candidate for this cycle to me.

Perfect? Are you crazy? When asked about the right to own semi-automatic weapons: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,"

He's a RINO. What is it with Republicans and their African-American fetish? Do you really think it will inoculate your from the charge of racism? How has that worked for Clarence Thomas?

what would it take for you to support the GOP and/or Sen. Paul running for President?

A refusal to lift the debt ceiling until the election, combined with a pledge to remove the Fed's charter and shut down the NSA.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 1:26 PM  

Carson is a complete non-starter, being a gun grabber.

Hence the ineffectual token spot.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2014 1:28 PM  

We desperately need a second Party in the USA.

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 1:28 PM  

OT: New Disney cartoon, Shutterbug. Bugs spy on kids with tiny cameras and report to central authority. For their own good. Never fear when shutterbug is near!

Sounds liberty minded.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2014 1:29 PM  

What to do, what to do. I despise the Republicans, but I also don't care for the libertarians either.

Guess it's Constitution Party time.

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 1:32 PM  

But please note that the concept of predictive programming is tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff. I want to be on record saying this. And thanks to NSA, I am.

Never fear when NSA is near!

Anonymous Salt January 25, 2014 1:41 PM  

A refusal to lift the debt ceiling until the election, combined with a pledge to remove the Fed's charter and shut down the NSA.

No pledge. Seen that one before, many times. Do it first.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 1:56 PM  

Are you crazy?

Depends on who you ask, but I'm not compromising my principles. I'm exploiting the propensity of others to compromise their principles. If I thought, for a minute, Carson, as VP, could or would ever be able to initiate some expansion of gun control, I would walk back my tentative opinion.

Anonymous Conrad The Crazed January 25, 2014 2:02 PM  

Watching the two presidential runs by Ron Paul (2008/2012) convinced me that establishment will NEVER allow its corrupted hold on power to revert to the grassroots. The phenomenally blatant manner in which the GOP yanked the rug out from under every grassroots Paul-supporting movement was truly instructive. Rules were changed on the fly, delegate nominations were rescheduled in secret, even vote totals were suppressed or in some cases outright falsified.

The RNC convention was the final straw for me. What the establishment did in Tampa was like a railroad-tie smashed across the face of the grassroots. Got it, assholes....message received loud and clear. The 'Republican' Party is a walking mummified corpse. The Tea Party has been essentially co-opted too.

There are no methods remaining through which to restore the Republic. No methods, that is, that don't involve watering Jefferson's Tree of Liberty. There is simply too much rot at the core.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2014 2:07 PM  

Depends on who you ask, but I'm not compromising my principles.

Sure you're not. You're excited to support an anti-gun candidate for racial reasons. I'd say you already have the government you deserve. I mean, you already have an anti-gun black president who says he is a Christian. You don't even need Carson when you've got Obama.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2014 2:09 PM  

No pledge. Seen that one before, many times. Do it first.

They can't, until elected. I think going ten months without lifting the debt ceiling is sufficient proof of intent. However, if Rand Paul is going to support continued mass immigration in the guise of "reform", I won't support him anyhow.

Anonymous Salt January 25, 2014 2:17 PM  

They can't, until elected.

If they can go 10 months, prior to election, without lifting the debt ceiling they can go 20. Rand need not become president for the NSA or the FED to die. Congress could do it today. Screw pledges.

Anonymous Salt January 25, 2014 2:19 PM  

Vox, would you have put such a condition on Ron Paul as you do Rand? I would not, which is why I'd vote for Ron. Rand? He fell a ways away from the tree.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 2:25 PM  

Sure you're not. You're excited to support an anti-gun candidate for racial reasons. I'd say you already have the government you deserve. I mean, you already have an anti-gun black president who says he is a Christian. You don't even need Carson when you've got Obama.

Damn you, Vox. I can't find a chink in that argument except, as far as just desserts go, all things considered, I probably deserve much worse than the government I now have. If only Carson was born in Zimbabwe...

Anonymous Conrad The Crazed January 25, 2014 2:27 PM  

Last shiv in the back I take from Runt....errrr, Rand....Paul. A ways from the tree indeed.....as in MILES away. Rand is signaling TPTB that he is interested in becoming a card-carrying member of the DC cocktail circuit. So long Runt.....have fun joining your fancy club.

Anonymous Noah B. January 25, 2014 2:29 PM  

"However, if Rand Paul is going to support continued mass immigration in the guise of "reform", I won't support him anyhow."

On top of that, he's supporting Mitch McConnell for reelection. He seems to be falling into the usual trap of placing party before principle. Sadly, I simply can't support the man.

I've been more enthusiastic about Ted Cruz, but it seems like he did recently criticize Obama for not enforcing the federal laws against marijuana in Colorado and other states that have decriminalized it. What I don't know is if that translates into opposition to repealing those federal laws, but it probably does.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 2:31 PM  

I've been more enthusiastic about Ted Cruz, but it seems like he did recently criticize Obama for not enforcing the federal laws against marijuana in Colorado and other states that have decriminalized it. What I don't know is if that translates into opposition to repealing those federal laws, but it probably does.

Ted Cruz is one of the more hawkish members of the Senate on Iran.

He's a disaster.

Anonymous Noah B. January 25, 2014 2:34 PM  

"Ted Cruz is one of the more hawkish members of the Senate on Iran."

Damn it, Josh.

Anonymous Noah B. January 25, 2014 2:35 PM  

So basically we're screwed. Again. No matter what.

Anonymous Salt January 25, 2014 2:37 PM  

Rand is signaling TPTB that he is interested in becoming a card-carrying member of the DC cocktail circuit.

Yup. He may jigger the rules here and there, but a game changer he is not. Ron was a game changer and you knew that from the start.

Blogger Krul January 25, 2014 2:46 PM  

What is it with Republicans and their African-American fetish?

It's weird to me that Republicans are trying so hard to woo the African Americans (12.6%) while they're losing the Whites (72.4%).

Besides, do they really think they can break Democrat dominance over the African American community? Since 1964 82-95% of Black voters have voted for the Democratic candidate in Presidential elections.
(source)

For the Republican party, winning the African American vote is an unattainable goal with a meager reward. It's impossible and pointless.

Blogger RobertT January 25, 2014 2:52 PM  

" But the RNC wants to appear welcoming to the libertarian element in their party..."

This problem is not just at the top of the Republican party, it also exists in the grass roots. The precinct chairmen and other party functionaries owe their position to the establishment and they even say, they only pay attention to those who have paid their dues with years of selfless participation. Newcomers are looked down on. I know of what I speak. The first Republican event I ever attended was a Lincoln Day dinner at which I spoke as a candidate for nomination. They finally warmed up to me, but it literally took a year.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2014 2:55 PM  

What is it with Republicans and their African-American fetish?

Karl Rove has jungle fever.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 2:58 PM  

For the Republican party, winning the African American vote is an unattainable goal with a meager reward. It's impossible and pointless.

It's not about winning elections, it's all about getting the "get out of racism jail free" card.

To quote from "Cruel Intentions":

"don't start with that racist bullshit. My husband and I donated to Colin Powell!"

Anonymous J January 25, 2014 2:58 PM  

as the Republican National Committee tries to repair relationships and increase outreach to all political groups,

Fuck them. In Virginia, they screwed Cuccinelli, and now they want to be my buddy to get Gillespie elected. No way in hell am I voting for that son of a bitch. Time to send a message that conservative support cannot be taken for granted.

Blogger Adam Lawson January 25, 2014 3:02 PM  

Apparently blogspot ate my last attempt to comment...

I'm exploiting the propensity of others to compromise their principles.

No, you're falling for some crap. Carson won't win the black vote. A Cain/Carson ticket wouldn't win the black vote. Not even against two white Democrats.

Black people voted 90% Democrat before Obama ran. It's got nothing to do with the color of the candidate running and everything to do with what said candidate supports. Same thing for single women: They're voting themselves money from the public coffers.

Blogger Adam Lawson January 25, 2014 3:04 PM  

Also, even if Carson did win the black vote he'd have to win enough of it to make up for people like me.

When a politician says he wants to regulate semi-automatic weapons it betrays a view of governance and people that I don't want in power. Either he's a retard who doesn't know what a semi-automatic gun is (hint: most of them), or he would rather disarm potential victims because there's a slight chance a lunatic might get the gun.

Not an acceptable trade-off. There are far more crimes prevented with semi-automatic guns than committed by lunatics with them.

Blogger racketmensch January 25, 2014 3:04 PM  

I'm interested to see how Rand votes on the Iran sanctions bill, although "they" might allow him a pass if there are enough pro votes for it to carry it without him, in order to continue the ambiguity. If he votes for it, I'm done. In my opinion, his wife wears the pants. I'll never forget the look on her face after the six million dollar money bomb. The light switched on right there.

Anonymous Steveo January 25, 2014 3:05 PM  

TQC - We desperately need a second Party in the USA.

You got that right.

When the republicans lose again in November... it will be my fault. I'm down with that.
Nothing they have done or say they will do will get me back to that slower motion train wreck, lest of all empty words from suits from the store.

Holy cow, you know what voting republican has in common with hitting yourself in the head with a hammer? They both feel so good when you quit.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 3:29 PM  

"He's a RINO"

It strikes me that nowadays, it's the Tea Party folks that are the Rino's. They clearly are in the minority in the Republican party where their political views are concerned and they are incapable of coming close to getting a candidate nominated for the presidency because the majority of rank and file registered Republicans have no use for them or don't trust them.

Anonymous roger u January 25, 2014 3:31 PM  

Libertarians probably fit better with the GOP than social conservatives do.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 3:35 PM  

"Watching the two presidential runs by Ron Paul (2008/2012) convinced me that establishment will NEVER allow its corrupted hold on power to revert to the grassroots."

Paul's problem wasn't the Republican establishment. Paul's problem was he and his policy positions couldn't muster much support form primary voters.

Anonymous VD January 25, 2014 3:46 PM  

Vox, would you have put such a condition on Ron Paul as you do Rand?

No. He earned the trust that he garnered. Rand hasn't earned any trust, and appears to be on the verge of squandering his inherited libertarian goodwill.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 3:47 PM  

"Fuck them. In Virginia, they screwed Cuccinelli"

Cuccinlli lost because he was anti-gay, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion and had a history of taking specific positions that made him look like a retrograde extremists in the eyes of many voters.

Anonymous J January 25, 2014 3:50 PM  

It strikes me that nowadays, it's the Tea Party folks that are the Rino's. They clearly are in the minority in the Republican party where their political views are concerned and they are incapable of coming close to getting a candidate nominated for the presidency because the majority of rank and file registered Republicans have no use for them or don't trust them.

Let's leave aside the fact that it is the GOP establishment that detests the TP, not the rank and file.

The GOP definitely has a use for TP people -- namely, their votes. Basically, the GOP attitude is "vote for us no matter how many times we screw you over on the issues you care about, and no matter how actively we sabotage any candidates you nominate. What are you gonna do, vote Democrat? Bwahahaha!"

If the TP cannot coopt the GOP, which seems unlikely, then the TP must defect from the GOP. The GOP is the enemy (along with the entire Washington establishment) and must be destroyed.

Anonymous J January 25, 2014 3:51 PM  

Cuccinlli lost because he was anti-gay, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion and had a history of taking specific positions that made him look like a retrograde extremists in the eyes of many voters.

He lost because the national GOP actively undermined him.

Anonymous J January 25, 2014 3:53 PM  

Paul's problem wasn't the Republican establishment. Paul's problem was he and his policy positions couldn't muster much support form primary voters.

The establishment has structured the primaries to ensure that its candidates succeed and "outsider" candidates (TP or libertarian) fail.

Anonymous Colorado Confederate January 25, 2014 3:53 PM  

CONAN THE CRAZED:
"The Tea Party has been essentially co-opted too."
We must remember that there are essentially *two* Tea Parties: The quiet, unorganized Tea Party that meets, if at all, in groups of ten or less, or in the lounge at the VFW.

The other is the incorporated, visible Tea Party, with a broad nation-wide bureaucracy with chairmen, vice-chairmen, etc. This is the Tea Party that wins praises (at least on the surface) from the GOP establishment.

The latter Tea Party is by far the most likely to be co-opted.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 3:57 PM  

"Let's leave aside the fact that it is the GOP establishment that detests the TP, not the rank and file."

No, let's not leave it aside. Let's take not of the fact that in the last GOP primary none of the candidates that came closest to the TP's ideology came close to winning the Nomination. That's not because of anything the GOP leadership did. It's due to the fact that none of the candidate could attract enough support from members of the GOP.

"If the TP cannot coopt the GOP, which seems unlikely, then the TP must defect from the GOP. The GOP is the enemy (along with the entire Washington establishment) and must be destroyed."

You talk like "The GOP" is nothing more than the leadership. Again, the problem with the Tea Party is that their views and positions are not sufficiently impressive to attract anything like enough support to guarantee their positions will prevail. Seems the Tea Party and its supporters demand orthodoxy. That's fine. They should start their own party. All that will do is guarantee the Democratic party dominance of the Judiciary and the executive for decades.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 3:59 PM  

"He lost because the national GOP actively undermined him."

Again, there's that voting thing you need to taking into account. He couldn't beat an unlikeable, weak candidate with little or no governing experience. That's on him.

Anonymous Colorado Confederate January 25, 2014 3:59 PM  

"...The first Republican event I ever attended was a Lincoln Day dinner..."

This ought to tell us a great deal about the Republican Party, today and always. Despite a few GOP statesmen through the years with a patriotic, limited government turn-of-mind; the Republican Party has forever been the Party of Lincoln

Anonymous What Would Lodi Do? January 25, 2014 4:00 PM  

...they are doing their best to entice more libertarian Republicans into the fold.

They can do so by actually supporting our positions for once.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 4:01 PM  

"The establishment has structured the primaries to ensure that its candidates succeed and "outsider" candidates (TP or libertarian) fail."

Ron Paul had every opportunity to raise tons of money. He had every opportunity in the debates. He was on the ballot. He had every opportunity to ask for endorsements. What more does Mr. Paul need? These are the same thing every candidate had. The problem was simple. He couldn't attract support from voters.

Anonymous Just_Michael January 25, 2014 4:03 PM  

The RNC needs to own up to the fact that it destroyed the future of the GOP when it spit in the faces of the Ron Paul supporters.

There's no returning from that.

The liberty movement was the future of the GOP.

The RNC killed it.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 4:03 PM  

"They can do so by actually supporting our positions for once."

What would those be?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 4:09 PM  

"Cuccinlli lost because he was anti-gay, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion and had a history of taking specific positions that made him look like a retrograde extremists in the eyes of many voters."

My ass. After every lost election, the Rockefeller Republicans try to blame social conservatives so as to find even more excuses to sell them down the river. Weird how they never say the opposite after every won election.

Get this through your skull: Given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, people will vote for the Democrat. Making the Republican Party even more like Democrat-lites than they already are is not a winning strategy. Why would they take the pale imitation when they can have the real thing?

"The problem was simple. He couldn't attract support from voters."

People will vote for whomever and whatever television tells them to.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 4:10 PM  

Okay, I'm not unreasonably obstinate. Carson's out...What about Justin Amash? Hey, Liberty Caucus Millennial and Eastern Orthodox Christian.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 4:10 PM  

Rand should win in Iowa unless Santorum runs. We'll see who the Republican establishment supports against him.

Anonymous Josh January 25, 2014 4:12 PM  

Okay, I'm not unreasonably obstinate. Carson's out...What about Justin Amash? Hey, Liberty Caucus Millennial and Eastern Orthodox Christian.

What about Rand? Don't get me wrong, I like Amash.

Anonymous Just_Michael January 25, 2014 4:15 PM  

If Rand wins the GOP nomination, it will mean that Rand has been endorsed by the RNC.

If Rand is endorsed by the RNC, it will be proof positive that he's sold out.

The people who run the show in D.C. aren't elected.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 4:18 PM  

"People will vote for whomever and whatever television tells them to. "

Well, we know this isn't true. There are myriad examples of it not being true. On top of that, your statement is poorly put together since televisions don't tell anyone who to vote for.

Beyond that, the fact is Cuccinelli simply could not muster enough support at the polls.For example, he only got 34% of the vote of self proclaimed moderates. This is 13 points less than the 2009 Republican candidate for governor. He only 58% of the vote of white men, again 13 points less than the Republican candidate in 2009. This is simple, he was a flawed candidate that couldn't muster the most basic amount of support that a Republican candidate for governor in VA should. In this case it was Cuccinelli's extreme views that lost him an election in a state that is not made up of extremists.

Anonymous roger u January 25, 2014 4:19 PM  

"Cuccinlli lost because he was anti-gay, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion and had a history of taking specific positions that made him look like a retrograde extremists in the eyes of many voters."

That's why the libertarians didn't vote for him, but why didn't the social conservatives? Or are there just that few social conservatives?

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 4:30 PM  

FritzG said:
All that will do is guarantee the Democratic party dominance of the Judiciary and the executive for decades
Until they fail to pay the soldiers first.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 4:30 PM  

"That's why the libertarians didn't vote for him, but why didn't the social conservatives? Or are there just that few social conservatives?"

How do you know they didn't? He did get 83% of those self identifying as "conservative" (which is 8 points less than the GOP candidate in 2009). You aren't going to get elected to state wide office in VA just with conservatives. You need moderates. He failed completely to attract this voter.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 4:31 PM  

"Until they fail to pay the soldiers first."

If the hope for derailing Democrats lies in them not paying members of the military, then non-democrats have far more problems than you or I think they do.

Anonymous Will Best January 25, 2014 4:33 PM  

The GOP does, on average, appoint better justices though.

And the GOP could probably get 20-25% black vote if the promised to start deporting non US citizens as a means of freeing up more welfare money and jobs for the poor ala Saudi Arabia. They are approaching their floor on Hispanics anyway so I doubt they would lose much, and as a bonus they would probably get 3-4 million white males off their butts and to the voting booths, which would more than offset the 1-2 million "moderates" they would lose

Anonymous Billy January 25, 2014 4:35 PM  

The deep south has quite a few potential presidential candidate to offer. Jeff Sessions would be a solid choice. I think all traditional republicans would rally around him. For some reason I don't think the republican establishment is interested.

Anonymous Billy January 25, 2014 4:38 PM  

With Obama's approval numbers at low levels, why are the republicans trying to discourage their base with amnesty proposals. The 2014 elections are right around the corner.

Anonymous Will Best January 25, 2014 4:41 PM  

Because they are going to win 2014 in a walk so its the perfect time to appease their elite masters. It gives the electorate 2.5 years to forget. And of course whoever the establishment picks won't have voted for it to give them plausible deniability.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 4:42 PM  

FritzG said:
"People will vote for whomever and whatever television tells them to. "

Well, we know this isn't true. There are myriad examples of it not being true. On top of that, your statement is poorly put together since televisions don't tell anyone who to vote for.


Notice that FritzG doesn't mention any examples of a majority of voters supporting "socially unacceptable" (as deemed so by the Cathedral's propaganda arm, the media) positions. For example, you can see majorities of voters supporting a ban on gay marriage because it is "socially acceptable" to complain about gays being married. However, you don't see any voting majorities considering abolishing marriage 2.0.

The average idiot voter is easily manipulated by media, especially the women (The majority of TV commercials and mall floor space is dedicated to women, because they're easier to manipulate).

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 4:45 PM  

What about Rand?

He's okay, but I would like to know more about his stated "great amount of respect for Ayn Rand". If he buys into her whole philosophy, it would be a red flag for me. I need more information. There's plenty of time.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 4:50 PM  

If the hope for derailing Democrats lies in them not paying members of the military, then non-democrats have far more problems than you or I think they do.

If you want USG to keep telling people what to do, it's probably a good idea to pay the military and federal law enforcement first over that of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other sinecures. Every empire in human history has decayed and fallen, even Chinese dynasties. And it has surprised the socialites and court eunuchs every time, whether it was Pax Romana or Ming China.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 4:52 PM  

"Well, we know this isn't true. There are myriad examples of it not being true."

Oh? Name me these myriad examples from recent history of candidates who were not able to get serious TV time - including coverage from the mainstream news outlets - getting themselves elected to major national or statewide offices. Even Jesse Ventura owed his name recognition to having been on television.

"On top of that, your statement is poorly put together since televisions don't tell anyone who to vote for. "

I don't know whether you're trying to deceive me, or just deceiving yourself, but the dishonesty here is mindboggling. Television defines the range of acceptable candidates and, thus, the acceptable range of opinions that can be defined as mainstream. Long story short, if TV decides to ignore you, you'll never get beyond single digits in any statewide or national race. Furthermore, if television tells people that you're a marginal candidate, you will be. Ross Perot bought his way onto TV through the brute force of the billions of dollars at his disposal. Absent that, if you don't have a national political organization to buy you TV commercials and to get you airtime on television outlets that are friendly to it (Fox News, MSNBC, etc), it's hello single digits.

"In this case it was Cuccinelli's extreme views that lost him an election in a state that is not made up of extremists."

You present this vary-arguable assertion as fact, with nothing to back it up. You mentioned that Cuccinelli didn't get elected because he didn't get enough votes - an achievement for which I'll grant you today's Captain Obvious Award - but as to why, that's debatable, and your case is far from made. But hey, maybe if you repeat an unsupported assertion enough times, some people will start to think it's true. Not around here, of course, but somewhere.

Anonymous hausfrau January 25, 2014 4:53 PM  

My impression from party meetings is that the old guard is not so much afraid of infighting with Republican libertarians as they are afraid of libertarians tuning out altogether. They control the party from the national level down to the state leadership.
The thing about the social conservatives is that they fervently buy into the civic responsibility fiction of voting. They believe they are responsible to vote for the lesser of two evils every time. Social conservatives are good dupes, easily catered to with rhetoric. Libertarians don't generally believe we have two opposing parties. They tend to show their disgruntlement by opting out of the process, voting third party or not at all. Lack of participation de-legitimatizes the whole election theatre and the subsequent appearance of voter consent for the things government does. That's where the threat lies (at least in my opinion).

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 4:56 PM  

P.S. My dad told me long ago that he feared that television had made democracy obsolete. Now we know without a doubt that dad was right.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 4:59 PM  

And to add to this, the Democrats are the Inner Party and the Republicans are the Outer Party, the Cathedral deems which policies are "respectable" and dismisses those it rejects. But its empire, Pax Americana, is showing signs of decay, and it will fall just like every single other ruling structure has in the past.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 5:00 PM  

@hausfrau

There are other things that delegitimize the system as well. Why, for example, would anyone bother to show up to vote on a controversial ballot measure, when they can be sure beyond any doubt that it will just be struck down in six months when the left has gone judge-shopping for someone who will overturn it? People tire of being unpaid extras in the kabuki of pretend-democracy; they start to think of other things they could do with a fine Tuesday in November.

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 5:02 PM  

"Now, as the Republican National Committee tries to repair relationships and increase outreach to all political groups, they are doing their best to entice more libertarian Republicans into the fold."



Baby, come on home. I only hit you like that last night because you made me do it. It won't happen again, just come home. I love you, really I do.

That is pretty much the way the GOP looks at the libertarian wing, bitches they can slap around and then woo back in. Judge their actions. Just this Nov. the submarined the libertarian/Tea Party Va. Governor candidate and Karl Rove et al have been working around the clock to change the primary rules and funding to ensure the "right" candidates get nominated.

These guys are dead elephants walking.

Anonymous Brandon January 25, 2014 5:05 PM  

The two party system....the two hands with one mind behind them. We are in the age of the separation of the sheep (right hand) from the goats (left hand).

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:07 PM  

"P.S. My dad told me long ago that he feared that television had made democracy obsolete. Now we know without a doubt that dad was right. "

Your dad would have been truly prescient had he said that unlimited campaign funding would kill democracy. If you or anyone else wants to see non-establishment candidate break through, you better start to think seriously about changing the campaign financing laws.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:09 PM  

"when they can be sure beyond any doubt that it will just be struck down in six months when the left has gone judge-shopping for someone who will overturn it?"

You make it sound like it's JUST the left that goes judge shopping. This is a well-worn tactic practiced by everyone on the political spectrum.

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 5:11 PM  

"...you better start to think seriously about changing the campaign financing laws. " - FritzG January 25, 2014 5:07 PM

While money is always an issue in political campaigning it isn't the end all be all. Ron Paul had plenty of success in raising enough to be competitive and was able to get his message out. All the money in the world wouldn't have changed the fact the Dead Elephants were never going to let him win and did everything they could to undermine him.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:12 PM  

"the submarined the libertarian/Tea Party Va. Governor candidate"

Cuccinelli was a terrible candidate. He took extreme views in a state not made up of extremist. If you want to blame someone for his loss, blame him and blame the voters who judged him and unsound choice.

Anonymous hausfrau January 25, 2014 5:14 PM  

Anti-Democracy Activist
Of course, the will of the people is thwarted by all 3 branches of government in myriad ways. Your example of the judges does remind my of Justice Roberts and Obamacare. We all had to vote for Bush in order get these small government, constitutionalist judges. Clearly that hasn't worked out well over time. Politicians appoint many of the judges that legislate from the bench.

Anonymous Inshallah McGelignite January 25, 2014 5:15 PM  

Bush 43?!

The last small-government Republican was Coolidge. Reagan talked a good game, but he didn't really deliver.

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 5:15 PM  

"Cuccinelli was a terrible candidate." - FritzG January 25, 2014 5:12 PM

No John McCain and Mitt Romney were terrible candidates. Do you believe that the Republican party did everything they could to support the Republican nominee in Virginia?

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:15 PM  

Court favorites, such as FritzG, during times of imperial decay, often go into increasing denial of reality as the empire declines. A good example of such reality denial is FritzG's denial that the Idiot Box tells the Idiot Voter which policies are "respectable".

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:17 PM  

"All the money in the world wouldn't have changed the fact the Dead Elephants were never going to let him win and did everything they could to undermine him. "

Was it the Dead Elephants fault that Paul only got 10% of the primary vote nationwide? What exactly did the Dead Republicans do to stop people from voting for him? Wait don't answer that. I know the answer. PEOPLE DIDN"T LIKE HIM ENOUGH

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:20 PM  

@FritzG
You mean the campaign "reform" laws that exempted media corporations from their bans on speech? FritzG continues his Prudentius impersonation.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:25 PM  

That's true, everybody goes judge shopping because the Cathedral's power over the US Judiciary is spotty. The Judiciary being the only remaining legitimate oligarchy left from the Framers of the Constitution. The other oligarchy was the Senate appointed by the states and the electoral college. When the progressives made the Senators elected, they shifted the oligarchy to academia, media, and the bureaucracy.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:26 PM  

"Do you believe that the Republican party did everything they could to support the Republican nominee in Virginia? "

Good God...From September onward the RNC was looking at VA polls that had Cuccinelli consistently down by 5 points and more than 7 points down in their own polls. Why in the world would they spend any amount of the $12 million the RNC had on hand on October 1st to support this terrible candidate who was almost certainly going to lose. Also, the DNC didn't spend a dime on McCaulliffe.

And it's not as though Cuccinelli couldn't close the spending gap by having one of the rich republicans funnel money to him. But even the big spending conservative donors understood that was throwing good money after bad.

So what was the RNC going to do? Spend millions on Cuccinelli, who was going to lose no matter what they spent, when they knew they had lots of close races in 2014 for which they would have a much better opportunity to make a difference in a race.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 5:29 PM  

Hey FritzG - you think you could try saying the word "extreme" a few more times? I don't think you've repeated that manta enough for it to be a meme yet. Maybe something like: "He was the extremest extremist who extremely extreme in his extreme extremism".

Seriously - I don't think I've heard the word "extreme" used that many times since mid-90s kids' commercials. Somebody break out the Freakazoid DVDs and dig up my Tamagotchi.

The problem with people like FritzG, who think that an acceptable way to respond to being challenged to prove their unsupported assertions with hard evidence is to simply repeat those assertions over and over and over again verbatim, isn't that their arguments are bad. It's that those bad arguments are effective with a distressingly high percentage of the population.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:29 PM  

Prudentius... err, FritzG still denying the Idiot Box.

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 5:33 PM  

"Was it the Dead Elephants fault that Paul only got 10% of the primary vote nationwide?" - FritzG January 25, 2014 5:17 PM

When was this nationwide primary vote? Last I checked primaries/caucuses were held on a state by state basis.

As far as things that were done, in my home state they removed the primaries with ballots that could be counted and changed the nomination process to a caucus where you made your selection by putting a coin in a bucket so no records were left. There was universal shock as the results were read, no one felt that the results reflected the observably reality of the support in the building. Now that Paul is not running they are talking about returning to the previous system.

Then there was Speaker Boner and the shenanigans that went on in Tampa. Those would be some examples of ways that the Dead Elephants actively worked to undermine and suppress the support of Ron Paul.

Now would you mind answering the question as to whether you believe that the Republican party did everything they could to support the Republican candidate for Governor of Virginia?

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 5:34 PM  

Hey FritzG - you think you could try saying the word "extreme" a few more times? I don't think you've repeated that manta enough for it to be a meme yet. Maybe something like: "He was the extremest extremist who extremely extreme in his extreme extremism".

Seriously - I don't think I've heard the word "extreme" used that many times since mid-90s kids' commercials. Somebody break out the Freakazoid DVDs and dig up my Tamagotchi.


Heh heh, thumbs up.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:35 PM  

FritzG says, "Republican Extreme, GI Joe Extreme, Extreme Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, go Extreme Turtles!"

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 5:36 PM  

"From September onward the RNC was looking at VA polls that had Cuccinelli consistently down by 5 points and more than 7 points down in their own polls. Why in the world would they spend any amount of the $12 million the RNC had on hand on October 1st to support this terrible candidate who was almost certainly going to lose."

Ah, so "You guy is going to lose anyway, so you might as well not spend any money on him".

I haven't read that big book by Sun Tzu in a while, but isn't there something in it about not taking strategic advice from your enemies? Maybe Montgomery should have called Rommel and said: "Hey Erwin, you're a pretty smart guy - would you be a dear and draw up a battle plan I could use for the next few months?".

"Hirohito Says Midway Not Worth Fighting, Nimitz Says 'Thanks - I Hadn't Thought Of That' And Turns Back To California"

Sorry dude, a turnip truck may have just rolled by, but I didn't fall off it.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:37 PM  

The fact that USG spent a billion dollars on a website is a splendid example of imperial decline.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:38 PM  

It also helps that FritzG's bad arguments are backed up by power.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:39 PM  

Anti....

Every single exit polled show that people shied away from Cuccinelli because they found his social conservatism too extreme for their taste. You don't like that word, Extreme, I don't care. It's a perfectly useful word and accurately describes the problem that Cuccinelli had.

Anonymous Conservative January 25, 2014 5:42 PM  

We have to reach the moderates. " Both McCain and Romney captured even bigger margins among conservatives than did Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he crushed Jimmy Carter.

How, then, did Reagan win huge landslides in both his races as nominee while the two most recent GOP contenders fell short?

The answer is that Reagan won because he did better among moderates, not conservatives." - Medved


Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:44 PM  

""You guy is going to lose anyway, so you might as well not spend any money on him"

No one told the RNC not spend money on Cuccinelli. They came to that conclusion all by themselves. It wasn't democrats or the media or anyone else that convinced the RNC spending money on him was a waste. It was their own polls. Don't get all uppity about something you clearly don't understand. But hell why not give you a chance to hang yourself.

You are the RNC. 1 month before the election. You have $12 million cash on hand. Every internal poll you've commission and ever other poll you've seen tells yo that Cuccinelli is going to lose. What do you do with that $12 Million?

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:45 PM  

FritzG said, "Extreme Joe!"

I find FritzG's denial of the Idiot Box rather funny.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:46 PM  

"We have to reach the moderates."

Ya Think??? If you don't win the middle in national politics, you lose. It's that simple and that is exactly how Reagan won. They were called "Reagan Democrats" for a reason.

The big question is how do you do that today when moderate are breaking in larger and larger degree toward democrats after hearing Republican proposals and positions?

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 5:47 PM  

No, the problems that Cuccinelli had are 1) Northern Virginia is one big bedroom community for Washington during a Democratic administration, and 2) money that could have gotten him more TV time in the rest of the state, and therefore gotten that vote out, wasn't spent because the national party didn't support him.

Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, and anyhow are irrelevant, as the only poll that matters is the one that happens inside the voting booth. Even with all the disadvantages that made Cuccinelli's campaign an uphill battle all the way, it was still a squeaker. That's the bottom line.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:49 PM  

I am conflicted, who is a better Prudentius impersonator? FritzG or Michael Medved?

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 5:49 PM  

"So what was the RNC going to do? Spend millions on Cuccinelli, who was going to lose no matter what they spent, when they knew they had lots of close races in 2014 for which they would have a much better opportunity to make a difference in a race." - FritzG January 25, 2014 5:26 PM


So from the above I take it your answer would be "No" the Republicans didn't do everything they could to support the Republican nominee for governor of Virginia.

You think it is normal practice for a political party to remove funding in the final two weeks of a campaign that is within 2 points and ended up being the margin of victory? You also think it is normal practice for a major political party to spend $6 million less than they had the last time for the same race (which wasn't as close) 4 years earlier?

See:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/judson-phillips-cold-hard-truth/2013/nov/6/miracle-ken-cuccinelli/

Yeah, you are probably right it was the candidate that was the problem, he was a dirty Christian, homeschooling, libertarian extremist. Good riddance to scum like that.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 5:51 PM  

Anyhow, I'm done with ExtremeFritz. He has his dogma, the fact that he can repeat it over and over again is all the evidence he needs for it, and nothing's going to change his mind. I learned long ago that debate with someone whose mind is made up is a waste of time.

Blogger Adam Lawson January 25, 2014 5:56 PM  

To anyone thinking the Tea Party can't win GOP voters: 2010 Midterms. (This is where I drop the mic and walk off stage.)

The reason Obama doesn't have the House is because of Tea Party candidates. In my district a very popular lifetime Democrat politician was tossed out. He would routinely win by double digits in a very red area. But in 2010 he was swept out in a tide of Tea Party votes.

Cuccinelli struck me as a phony, so I'm not surprised he lost.

Two presidential elections in a row a good old Establishment Republican lost. McCain, for all of his "Maverick" bullshit, is a part of the establishment. It was his turn, then it was Romney's turn. The Establishment wants 2016 to be Christie's turn but he fucked that up.

There are a few candidates I would vote for, even fewer I would donate money to. But if it's another person like Chris Christie or John McCain, or even Romney, I'm doing what I did in 2012: Voting third party.

I won't vote for a Hoplophobe, I won't vote for anyone who wants to raise taxes one red cent, and I won't vote for anyone who is in favor of blanket amnesty. Oh, or expanding the welfare state. I fell for that with Bush, the "compassionate conservative" who abandoned fiscal conservatism at the first chance.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 5:57 PM  

Yeah, that dirty homeschooling Cuccinelli Extreme didn't put his kids in Publik Skule. Respectable citizens should put their kids in progressive seminaries... err, Publik Skules so they can learn progressive dogma.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 5:58 PM  

"No, the problems that Cuccinelli had are 1) Northern Virginia is one big bedroom community for Washington during a Democratic administration"

Northern Virginia was democratic in 2009 and the GOP won.

and 2) money that could have gotten him more TV time in the rest of the state, and therefore gotten that vote out, wasn't spent because the national party didn't support him."

These guys aren't idiots. When you are consistently down 7 point in the polls 2 weeks out, a little more money isn't going to get you there. Also, consider what the RNC has to sacrifice by spending 4 or 5 million in Virginia. That's lots of money that can't be spend on the 2014 races that are close. Think strategic!

"Exit polls are notoriously unreliable, and anyhow are irrelevant, as the only poll that matters is the one that happens inside the voting booth"

This is crazy talk. Exit polls are by no means unreliable. When they are conducted correctly they are immensely helpful. The Obama campaign, which was very vulnerable in 2012, made significant use of exit polls from 2010 to craft their messages in 2012 as well as to determine in exactly which swing districts in states additional funds should be committed. And it worked perfectly. In fact, is was the information gleaned from exit polls from 2010 that was crucial in Obama developing the strategy that won ohio in 2012.

It was also an exit-poll generated reason that led the Obama campaign to decide not to contest Indiana in 2012, a state they won in 2008.


Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 6:01 PM  

FritzG sure is obsessive about Cuccinelli Extreme.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 6:04 PM  

FritzG should shift his obsession from Cuccinelli Extreme to GI Joe Extreme.

Anonymous Conservative January 25, 2014 6:04 PM  

"The big question is how do you do that today when moderate are breaking in larger and larger degree toward democrats after hearing Republican proposals and positions"

Doubt it. What about the ObozoCare?

Anonymous Jimmy Onishi January 25, 2014 6:06 PM  

Ooooo, ekstareemu.

Anonymous allyn71 January 25, 2014 6:07 PM  

"When you are consistently down 7 point in the polls 2 weeks out, a little more money isn't going to get you there." - FritzG January 25, 2014 5:58 PM

He wasn't down 7 points in the final two weeks. Numerous polls had him down 2 which ended up being the margin of defeat.

I am sure it is normal for the GOP to pull support and allow a gubernatorial candidate to be outspent 10 to one in the final month because they are two points behind.

Blogger Old Rebel January 25, 2014 6:08 PM  

"Remember, the Republican Party elite have successfully been playing social conservatives for suckers since 1980."

Anyone who judges politicians by what they DO rather than what they SAY must agree with the above. I've been pounding that message for years while my "conservative" friends only shake their heads at a man who must be suffering from overwork.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 6:08 PM  

"Doubt it. What about the ObozoCare?"

Doubt what? That moderates are breaking left? That's a fact. And give the Affordable Care Act another 2 or 3 yeas and it won't be politically smart to use it against your opponent.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 6:09 PM  

ObamaCare, the Bachelor Tax that backfired on women. That's what happens when the Cathedral is packed full of Prudentiuses and other court eunuchs.

Blogger racketmensch January 25, 2014 6:09 PM  

fritzg - it is true that Cuccinelli lost a close race, possibly for the reasons you mention, however, I heard from a reliable source that the word went out to the R mega-donors to withhold support because his obviously crooked opponent was "someone who we can work with". I am reluctant to name the source, but I'm qwhite schor you would recognize the name as a major playa in the NOVA Republicans. For more evidence of "someone we can work with", see McDonall, Bob. Snakes, the lot of them.

Anonymous Conservative January 25, 2014 6:11 PM  

"That moderates are breaking left? That's a fact. And give the Affordable Care Act another 2 or 3 yeas and it won't be politically smart to use it against your opponent."

Lol. You have your version of reality and then there is the real world. The democraps aren't going to make the ACA work during a depression. Dream on bud.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 6:16 PM  

FritzG said:
And give the "Affordable" Care Act another 2 or 3 yeas and it won't be politically smart to use it against your opponent.
For some reason, the "moderates" (I'm through with Cathedral terminology) are breaking against ACA. The imperial decay is such that they cannot even impose a Bachelor Tax in a competent manner, and they blew a billion dollars on a website!

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 6:19 PM  

"They" referring to the Cathedral, not the "moderates".

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 6:27 PM  

Serously? He's down to "Obamacare will start working swell any old day now! Just you wait and see!!!" as an argument? Ugh. I'm done. I think I'll go figure out where my Freakazoid DVDs actually are - I've put myself in the mood.

Anonymous automatthew January 25, 2014 6:41 PM  

Over/under on when FritzG gets banned?

Anonymous cherub's revenge January 25, 2014 6:51 PM  

IM2L844 What about Justin Amash? Hey, Liberty Caucus Millennial and Eastern Orthodox Christian.

You've really got it in for the White man don't you IM2?

As I've demonstrated with my words and record, I am trying to grow a new generation of Republicans that includes more gays and lesbians, racial-ethnic minorities, women and young people," Amash said.

Yep, this mystery meat's right up your alley.

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 7:00 PM  

He's not going to be banned just by being annoying. However, being annoying may lead to people asking Rule #2 questions in the hopes that he is stupid enough to not answer them, which will then result in the aforementioned outcome.

But now, it's too early to tell.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 7:07 PM  

"being annoying may lead to people asking Rule #2 questions in the hopes that he is stupid enough to not answer them"

What's a "Rule #2 Question"?

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 7:13 PM  

Rules of the blog, upper left hand corner:

2. You are expected to back up your assertions, so don't be surprised if you happen to get called on them. If you fail to back up an assertion when called on it, but refuse to retract the statement, understand that I reserve the right to delete the relevant comment and all subsequent comments you attempt to make. If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner; providing links in lieu of answers is not acceptable. (Links providing additional information in support of your answer are great, of course.) The dishonest and evasive tactics that are so common in Internet argumentation are not permitted here. If you refuse to either answer a question or admit that you cannot answer it, then you will not be permitted to comment here and all of your subsequent comments will be deleted.

---

I'd say about 95% of the people who get banned, are banned due to repeatedly violating Rule #2.

Anonymous 11B January 25, 2014 7:24 PM  

How, then, did Reagan win huge landslides in both his races as nominee while the two most recent GOP contenders fell short?

Demographics. In 1980 and 1984 whites made up a substantially larger share of the electorate. So by winning 55% of the white vote, Reagan blew away Mondale.

Now a GOPer would have to win about 60% of the white vote just to have a chance to edge out the democrat. I don't even know if either McCain or Romney got 60% of the white vote. But to win in blowout fashion like Reagan, it would probably take about 65% of the white vote.

As long as the GOP keeps on supporting immigration, both legal and illegal, they are going to seal their fate.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 7:30 PM  

"I'd say about 95% of the people who get banned, are banned due to repeatedly violating Rule #2"

Wow....this sounds like fun!!!

Blogger racketmensch January 25, 2014 7:31 PM  

He was correct that the RNC would calculate the cost-effectiveness of their donations; of course they will not want to support conservatives unless they are shoo-ins. My point was that they were actively discouraging wealthy donors from individually supporting the Cuchinnelli campaign because the Democrat was more amenable to their business interests. Friendly fire will not be tolerated, unless there's some advantage to it.

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 7:39 PM  

Sometimes some people attempt to abuse rule #2 by asking irrelevant questions, so remember that you are always within your rights to ask them to identify the claim, based on which they are asserting rule #2.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 7:55 PM  

"My point was that they were actively discouraging wealthy donors from individually supporting the Cuchinnelli campaign because the Democrat was more amenable to their business interests"

Where is the evidence of this?

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 7:55 PM  

"Sometimes some people attempt to abuse rule #2 by asking irrelevant questions"

What amounts to "irrelevant"?

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:14 PM  

FritzG said:
What amounts to "irrelevant"?

Do support the Broncos or the Seahawks?

Blogger racketmensch January 25, 2014 8:17 PM  

Admissible evidence? None. Hearsay from trusted source - family member of warned off donor spreading the warning with specific attribution to known sleazoid source. I think it's called the " talking out of school" exception. They talk in person and they don't write things down. That's why they're rich and powerful and we're not. Like I said: snakes.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:18 PM  

FritzG's support for the Obamacare crap pile is a dead give away that he's a hack. Keep polishing turds Fritz, when empires fall, it never ends well for the court eunuchs.

Enjoy the Decline.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 8:20 PM  

Racket...I don't believe you. Cuccinelli screwed the pooch, his campaign and staff alienated too many, including big donors like the Chamber and he came off as out of touch on social issues.

Anonymous FritzG January 25, 2014 8:26 PM  

Rocket,
The problem with Obamacare is that it's not a straight up single payer system. But we still may get there. At least fewer folks will lose everything because they got sick and the emergency rooms will see fewer lines and healthcare costs will not be increasing so quickly. Five years from now ACA will be such an important part of the civic fabric that railing against it will be akin to railing against social security.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:27 PM  

@FritzG
I'm not talking about your creepy obsession over Cuccinelli Extreme (Did he turn down your advances?). You're trying to polish the "Affordable" Care Act turd, hack. You remind me of the Roman Literati who surprised by the collapse of Pax Romana. The socialites are always surprised when the empire falls. Every single time.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:30 PM  

Eventually you'll have to chose between paying Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and sinecures

Or

pay the military and federal law enforcement.

I assume you want people to still obey the USG right?

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:33 PM  

"part of the civic fabric"

I think "Cathedral" is a much more elegant term, but other commentators on this blog might disagree.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 8:36 PM  

In that case, I call a Rule #2 violation already. I asked FritzG directly to name the "myriad" (his own word) candidates for national or statewide office that have won without getting serious TV time, including coverage from mainstream news outlets. No answer was forthcoming.

Answer or retract.

Back to Freakazoid.

Blogger racketmensch January 25, 2014 8:38 PM  

Don't believe me. You said it yourself - he alienated the Chamber, the Chamber likes cooperative pooches, screwed or un-. That's why the long knives came out. "Sounds simple to me!" -Occam. Do you think richfux care about abortion or anything except the bottom line?

Anonymous Billy January 25, 2014 8:38 PM  

FritzG, some people would consider Thomas Jefferson an extremist today. Radically anti-tax, pro-gun and anti-central bank. A devout Christian, just a guess but he probably wouldn't have endorsed homosexual marriage either.

Anonymous RedJack January 25, 2014 8:42 PM  

Haven't been posting lately. My Bride's water broke last week, and the baby is only 15 weeks along. We have been told that the baby will not make it, but little Danni (from Daniel in the lions) is still moving.

We need prayers. Finally out of the hospital and home, but we have a storm coming. If something happens, I have a 20 mile drive to the hospital.

RedJack

Anonymous RedJack January 25, 2014 8:43 PM  

Danni is still in my bride's uterous. Still moving. still strong heartbeat.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 8:47 PM  

One of the the indications that FritzG is a court favorite is that he repeatedly refers to the Cathedral's authority when it comes to selecting which candidates are allowed to be elected. He just refers to it with different names such as, "civic fabric", "moderates" vs "extremists".

Charlie Stross referred to the Cathedral as the "Beige Dictatorship".

And Charlie is a lefty, he even hates Bitcoin.

Anonymous lurker January 25, 2014 8:49 PM  

"Enjoy the Decline."

Or as FritzG's leader told him "Embrace the Suck!"

Anonymous Billy January 25, 2014 8:51 PM  

Have there been any traditional conservative presidents in the modern era from the south. Bush, I guess you could say he was from Texas, but he was/is a progressive. I think one has to go back to Andrew Jackson to find a conservative president from the south. I just trying to figure out why. Does the union still hold such contempt towards southern paleo conservatism that the powers that be forbid the nomination. Pat Buchannan was close.

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 8:54 PM  

What amounts to "irrelevant"?

In borderline cases that is to be decided by Vox, but usually it's pretty obvious. Questions that are obviously rhetorical, like "Why are you being so stupid?" can be safely ignored, and ditto for question for where there is no previous claim that you could then retract as the option for not answering the question.

And Anti-Democracy Activist is correct about his question. But remember that retracting doesn't mean an admission that you were lying. It just means that the claim cannot be used as a premise for future arguments. If you feel lazy, you can always retract. We won't hold it against you.

Anonymous AJW308 January 25, 2014 8:56 PM  

RedJack, prayers are on their way.

Anonymous 11B January 25, 2014 9:05 PM  

At least fewer folks will lose everything because they got sick and the emergency rooms will see fewer lines and healthcare costs will not be increasing so quickly.

The ER lines won't decrease drastically because illegals will still use them. And illegals aren't supposed to enroll in the ACA, so this situation will not change. If the ACA were truly about saving money, then they would do something about illegals using the system. They would be given life saving care, and then deported. Furthermore, the continued importation of illegal, as well as legal, third worlders who cannot support themselves would end.

Anonymous Billy January 25, 2014 9:06 PM  

Redjack my prayers are with you.

Anonymous Obvious January 25, 2014 9:08 PM  

And what, exactly, would you replace the NSA with?

Also, as a salient point, rule # 2 doesn't apply to the blog owner, who is free to pick and choose the things he responds to.

Rseven, Gee. Why would anyone hate BitCoin? It's such a revolutionary thing...

Billy, Thomas Jefferson was a deist not a Christian. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

Anonymous Ajw308 January 25, 2014 9:10 PM  

Fritz,
At least fewer folks will lose everything because they got sick and the emergency rooms will see fewer lines and healthcare costs will not be increasing so quickly.
A) At the rate people are losing their health coverage, there will be more people who's households suffer due to serious illness, and
B) since its free, trips to the doctor will only increase. Don't feel like going to work today? Go to the doctor and get a note.

I know of a woman who manages a group home. The residents there love going to the doctor, especially the women (seeking one-on-one attention of an Alpha, I suspect). One once went 30 days in a 31 day month.

Blogger Unknown January 25, 2014 9:31 PM  

Some commentator above mentioned that television tells voters who to vote for.

FritzG claimed that television doesn't and said that there were examples of candidates being elected without relying on the media without mentioning any examples.

Then Anti-Democracy Activist then asked Fritz to name examples of national candidates in recent history that were elected who did not rely on television and MSM.

FritzG has refused to answer. Looks like a Rule #2 question isn't being answered.

Blogger buzzardist January 25, 2014 9:34 PM  

Well, of course they're trying to make up. There's a new election coming, and the whole "Let's win the Hispanic vote by buying them with amnesty...errr...immigration reform" hasn't gone anywhere, nor is it likely to. Even if Congress passes immigration reform, Democrats will be the beneficiaries, and I suspect that deep down, even if they are in denial, the likes of Boehner, Ryan, and McConnell know this.

So it's basically a choice between being relegated to a second party for the foreseeable future or winning back the Tea Partier and Ron Paul supporters that the GOP elite have trashed on for the past several years.

Sad thing is, a lot of people may fall for it. That popular kid with rich parents in school who acted like a bully most of the time and switched friends occasionally on a whim, just to keep people in fear? The new "friends" almost always tended to accept the situation, even if they were the ones being bullied last month and would be again next month. People want to feel wanted, and they want power. The GOP elite will offer both.

Blogger IM2L844 January 25, 2014 9:38 PM  

You've really got it in for the White man don't you IM2?

Seriously? You think that's my concern? Don't dig yourself too deep here just because you misconstrued a previous exchange.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2014 9:45 PM  

@ Markku

If you feel lazy, you can always retract. We won't hold it against you.

Not officially, anyway.

But it may be filed away for further reference on an individual basis.

Blogger buzzardist January 25, 2014 9:46 PM  

At least fewer folks will lose everything because they got sick and the emergency rooms will see fewer lines and healthcare costs will not be increasing so quickly.

It's always nice when liberals put out low-hanging fruit like this.

The people who heavily utilize the emergency rooms tend to be poor. Obamacare covers the poor through expanded Medicaid. About half the states have refused to expand Medicaid, so the uninsured in those states will have no reason to change their behavior.

But the really damning evidence on this question comes from Oregon, which voluntarily expanded its Medicaid several years before Obamacare came into being and did so with a random lottery system that has allowed the state to study the effects of insurance and uninsurance. Will the poor clog fewer emergency rooms? Nope, even with insurance the same people will still go to emergency rooms. In fact, they do so slightly more often. Will people on Medicaid actually be healthier? Nope, probably not. People on Medicaid, all factors being equal, actually have worse health outcomes that those not on Medicaid. Will people be saved from Medical bankruptcy? Maybe the hospital bills won't be as large, but the insurance bills will still be there to pay, and a person in a serious medical condition will likely lose wages in the process. If these people have any debt at all, a medical condition that makes them lose wages, even just a little, will probably be enough to force a bankruptcy, regardless of the medical bills.

So, no, Obamacare is not going to magically fix anything. A few people might avoid bankruptcy, but far from all of them. The emergency rooms may end up even more clogged, slowing the critical care response for people who really need it. The medical outcomes of those covered may actually suffer.

Don't agree? Hey, it's not me saying this. It's the researchers with Ph.D.s who are studying the Oregon experiment. Go argue with their data.

Anonymous Liberals suck January 25, 2014 9:51 PM  

Cool products @ Dude, I want that!

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2014 10:00 PM  

Dc red dogs said - to Obvious, why should anyone care, for anything but academic historical reasons, what Thomas Jefferson thought about anything? His theological preoccupations were a footnote to his Jeffersonian occupations. He was a camp follower of the French rationalists and of the stars of the older18th generation of Virginians who taught younger rich men how to enjoy spending their money (and how to take advantage of people, politically, socially, and even carnally) . He did some good things, he did some bad things, but bottom line is that he was as much a fool, as the word is used in the Bible ( to mean a foolish person, usually drunk on the praise he has heard of himself, who thinks he understands the world with a keen and rational but non-Biblical understanding), as most of the people we see on the street and at work every day.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2014 10:01 PM  

@ obvious

Billy, Thomas Jefferson was a deist not a Christian. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

After checking up on the Jefferson cut and paste job on the Bible, one would have to conclude that Jefferson was not a Deist, but a Bull Goose Looney.

He used a razor to cut and paste passages like some kind of psychopath with a hostage.

What a fucking moron.






Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2014 10:11 PM  

So, no, Obamacare is not going to magically fix anything. A few people might avoid bankruptcy, but far from all of them. The emergency rooms may end up even more clogged, slowing the critical care response for people who really need it. The medical outcomes of those covered may actually suffer.

This is the genius of Amerika, make something so bombastic and complex that other countries have introduced with little fanfare, that it becomes a wonder in itself.

Anonymous Obvious January 25, 2014 10:16 PM  

I was merely pointing out that Billy was wrong. You can ask him why he brought up Jefferson.

Anonymous Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 10:18 PM  

Libertarians:Republicans::Charlie Brown:Lucy and the football.

Anonymous zen0 January 25, 2014 10:22 PM  

I was merely pointing out that Billy was wrong. You can ask him why he brought up Jefferson.
No offense, just some clarification. Had to use your name for a comment identifier.

Anonymous Anonymous January 25, 2014 10:23 PM  

DC red dogs said - Obvious, I apologize, I misread your post. English, like every other language, I guess, is hard to understand sometimes.

Anonymous automatthew January 25, 2014 10:48 PM  

"He's not going to be banned just by being annoying."

It's not the annoying I notice. It's the style. Perhaps I should have asked: over/under on FritzG being unmasked as a Known Entity?

Blogger Markku January 25, 2014 10:51 PM  

Ah, right. Hmm. Yes, one particular known entity indeed comes to mind, but I won't put my money on it yet.

Anonymous automatthew January 25, 2014 11:06 PM  

"But it may be filed away for further reference on an individual basis"

dh has an app for that.

More seriously, I've long been brooding over the idea of social killfiles, implemented as browser extensions, or perhaps bookmarklets.

Some forums have Ignore settings that allow you to specify a set of commenters whose content shall not be shown to you. This is fine, and useful, but I'd also be willing to delegate my powers of ignorance and oblivion to other people more invested in a particular forum. Let them do the work of determining who's worth reading.

Or more broadly, let us all share the work. One approach is purely negative. Where Reddit has both up and down votes, and Hacker News has only upvotes, the social killfile might have only downvotes. And these downvotes would be aimed at the persona, not the content. Thus I might set a threshold for ignoring commenters when enough other people had ignored him. If 20% of the Ilk have ignored [insert Tad's new moniker], I am spared his droppings.

What stops me in my tracks is that this application requires the collection and collation of data that could very easily become of use to more important enemies.

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 25, 2014 11:08 PM  

"After checking up on the Jefferson cut and paste job on the Bible, one would have to conclude that Jefferson was not a Deist, but a Bull Goose Looney."

Here we agree entirely. I long ago gave up the silly superstition of believing that something was true just because some 18th century Virginia slavedriver said it was.

Then of course, there's the fact that Jefferson didn't really believe any of it himself. I've been to Monticello and stood at the South Pavilion, where Jefferson lived during the Revolutionary War. It has a fine view of Mulberry Row, where the higher-skilled of his slaves toiled away until they died, never having known a day's freedom in their lives. If Jefferson didn't believe any of his own PR about equality, why should I?

Anonymous Rick Johnsmeyer January 25, 2014 11:36 PM  

Jeff Sessions would be a solid choice.

Jeff Sessions voted "yes" on the Iraq war in 2002. He's a neocon. That's an unacceptable showstopper for myself and many other conservatives.

Anonymous Josh January 26, 2014 12:08 AM  

RedJack,

Praying for y'all

Anonymous Anti-Democracy Activist January 26, 2014 12:28 AM  

"Jeff Sessions voted "yes" on the Iraq war in 2002."

In fairness, I was a pretty solid "Conservative, Inc." type back then myself. Lots of people who supported that war in the beginning (Walter Jones and John Derbyshire, for example) came to regret their stances later. Let's not talk about what happened a dozen years ago - what does Sessions stand for *now*? Would he start a nuclear war with Russia to try to bring Jesus back (like Glenn Beck)? Would he start a nuclear war with Russia just for the hell of it (like John McCain)? Or is he saner, at least, than that?

Anonymous Eric Ashley January 26, 2014 2:21 AM  

Glenn Beck wants to start a nuclear war? Whaaaat? Source please. Or just admit you made a bad joke....its hard to tell with libertarians whether they're crazy or joking.

Blogger Hacked acct. No longer your supporter $1.50 January 26, 2014 3:40 AM  

These elected check collectors are equally pro bank.

Blogger Brad Andrews January 26, 2014 5:10 AM  

FritzG,

What happened to "supporting the nominee whoever they are?"

That is an indirect cost of not spending money supporting him. It shows that only "moderate" Republicans get such support.

I am highly likely to not even bother voting this time around, or any other time. I don't see the point.

People like Wendy Davis may motivate me just to stick it in her eye, but by my vote will likely never make a difference, even if Texas is lost to La Reconquista.

Blogger Rantor January 26, 2014 7:16 AM  

As for the arguing about Cuccinelli, the sad truth in northern virginia seems to be that it all comes down to abortion rights. McAwful was able to paint Cuccinelli as an extreme anti abortion candidate and that killed him among the baby-killing chattering classes. They just did it again to fill a state senate seat, all the ads I saw from the democrat woman running stated that her opponent was a tea-partier opposed to a woman's inalienable right to murder her offspring. She won without much trouble.

Our country is very ill.

Blogger Rantor January 26, 2014 7:19 AM  

@Brad, concur, you need to define your no-compromise issues and never vote against them. There is no reason to vote for the lesser evil.

Anonymous Robert in Arabia January 26, 2014 7:41 AM  

http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/calling-their-bluff-by-jb-campbell/
Read a man with balls in his sack.

Blogger Glen Filthie January 26, 2014 8:53 AM  

Well Vox, I think you missed the boat there. Unless the old school conservatives and the new libertarians find common ground and patch things up - not only will you suffer 8 years of incompetence and rancid corruption under the Buckwheat Administration - you will be bowing down to Hillary next!

I have been called a social conservative prude, a 'neocon' and countless other names but I know who my enemies are. In fact - that is my main problem with libertarians: they have some very, very unsavoury friends...and they have made enemies out of people they shouldn't have.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 9:25 AM  

Anti-Democracy Activist said:

"In that case, I call a Rule #2 violation already. I asked FritzG directly to name the "myriad" (his own word) candidates for national or statewide office that have won without getting serious TV time, including coverage from mainstream news outlets. No answer was forthcoming."

Markku (a moderator?) Says I am within my right to ask you to identify the claim that you are challenging. I am going to exercise that right. What claim of mine are you challenging?

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 9:35 AM  

"Well Vox, I think you missed the boat there. Unless the old school conservatives and the new libertarians find common ground and patch things up ...."

Now here's guy who gets it. A long time ago the Democrats realized that trying to enforce an orthodoxy of ideas within a party just doesn't work and leads to a failing party and failure. The Republicans understood this for a long time too. Not anymore. Until we live under a parliamentary system, the Republicans are going to have to learn to accept divergent views under their umbrella. Lots of people say, I won't vote for the R if they support immigration reform, even if they represent 80% of your other views. Others say, I won't vote for the R if they don't oppose abortion, but they agree with 80 of your other views.

When this happens enough, you end up with a Tea Party who alone can't govern, while the establishment end of the party can't govern without them. No on wants to compromise within the party. You end up losing.

Anonymous jla January 26, 2014 9:53 AM  

Glen Filthie, you don't know shit from shinola. If you haven't figured it out yet, YOU are the enemy and we detest you. Unprincipled pricks, the lot of you.

And another thing, anybody with a functioning brain already knows the system is rigged, so threats of this tyrant or that tyrant really doesn't impress us much.

Blogger Glen Filthie January 26, 2014 2:06 PM  

I know, JLA. I know. By the time a tyrant IS in a position to impress stupid people it's usually too late. At that point the cattle cars start getting loaded, the dissidents start disappearing in the middle of the night, nobody talks about it, and everyone wonders how things got so bad.

I AM smart enough to see a difference between the parties and the tyrants involved. Enjoy your rights, fella - because you are going to lose a lot more of them soon.

Anonymous Anonymous January 26, 2014 2:25 PM  

what would it take for you to support the GOP and/or Sen. Paul running for President?

Introduce a 10-year immigration moratorium bill and run on it as their #1 issue in the next election. I realize they can't pass it, but they could put their effort behind it -- no half-hearted "reform" qualifies -- and instantly end any attempts at amnesty and visa expansion.

Though immigration control would be such an easy sell that, if the GOP were seriously to push for it, it just might pass even now. It would be very hard for the unionist elements of the Democratic Party to oppose the obvious pro-worker arguments that are currently going unspoken.

It doesn't bother me so much that the GOP is pro-government. It's kind of a fact of life that the kind of people who seek a job in politics are going to be the kind of people who think government can fix things given the power. That's normal; real conservatives and libertarians have better things to do. But immigration is where the GOP is joining the Dems in being actively traitorous, willing to destroy the nation outright for the sake of cheap labor for big donors and some anti-racist credibility points (which they never get). That's worse than "compassionate conservatism."

Blogger Baloo January 26, 2014 6:05 PM  

I've reblogged and quibcagged this
HERE

Blogger Unknown January 26, 2014 6:16 PM  

FritzG said:
Markku (a moderator?) Says I am within my right to ask you to identify the claim that you are challenging. I am going to exercise that right. What claim of mine are you challenging?

Your dishonesty continues. You made a claim that television does not tell voters who to vote for, then stated there were examples of politicians being elected without depending on TV. Yet you name no examples. Anti Democracy Activist asked you for specific examples of national and statewide politicians getting elected without TV and MSM.

Now name those examples or get out.

Anonymous FritzG January 26, 2014 7:55 PM  

"You made a claim that television does not tell voters who to vote for, then stated there were examples of politicians being elected without depending on TV. "

See, this is why I'm glad Markku was around to tell me about these rules.

What I wrote was this:

"Well, we know this isn't true. There are myriad examples of it not being true. On top of that, your statement is poorly put together since televisions don't tell anyone who to vote for. "

The statement that I wrote this in response to and that I disputed was this one:

""People will vote for whomever and whatever television tells them to."

And this was written in response to me writing:

"The problem was simple. He (Cuccinelli) couldn't attract support from voters."

I said nothing like "...examples of politicians being elected without depending on TV."

That's what Anti Democracy Activist said I said.

Now, who's going to make the claim that the Cuccinelli campaign was not covered? Who is going to say that Cuccinelli did not try to sell his candidacy. In fact, Cuccinelli raised $21 million during his campaign. No one accused the Cuccinelli campaign of not getting his message out or being ignored by television.

Again, I appreciate Markku telling the about the rules.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 26, 2014 7:58 PM  

"Perfect? Are you crazy? When asked about the right to own semi-automatic weapons: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,""

The world won't stop spinning if assault rifles aren't available to the average citizen.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 26, 2014 7:59 PM  

""Perfect? Are you crazy? When asked about the right to own semi-automatic weapons: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I'm afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,""

The world won't stop spinning if assault rifles aren't available to the average citizen."

OK, I didn't read that properly. :D

Yeah, he's a problem.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 26, 2014 8:11 PM  

"And what, exactly, would you replace the NSA with? "

I know, I'm a day late to this thread, but I would take its funding and replace it with a free whiskey program, kinda' like the free cheese program........

1 – 200 of 202 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts