First time visitor? Learn more.

On Our List Of Nonsense To End, Let’s Not Forget The, “Endangered Species Act.”

by Flyovercountry ( 115 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at December 26th, 2012 - 8:00 am

This is the act that’s allowed a 3 inch lizard living in Texas, almost entirely indistinguishable from the other 100 species of 3 inch lizards living in Texas, to prevent our own increase in safe, domestic oil production.

Language warning on the video, as Penn and Teller could really not care any less if anyone is sensitive to their use of profanity, and they use all of their bad words in this.

Perhaps even more destructive than the EPA, another of the finer ideas of Richard Nixon, the Endangered Species Act has wrought more economic damage than any increas in taxation, any redistribution of wealth, or even any act of overt cronyism ever endeavored in our planet’s history. With the EPA listing Carbon Dioxide as a toxin, they have the potential to rival this ill advised law, but so far, they have a long way to go. By the way, notice that it was a Republican, Richard Nixon, who gave us this big government nightmare, for those of you who believe that the GOP only recently became a party to this trend of reckless increase in government scope and power. Come to think of it, Richard Nixon has a lot of these boondoggles to his credit.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

115 Responses to “On Our List Of Nonsense To End, Let’s Not Forget The, “Endangered Species Act.””
( jump to bottom )

  1. mawskrat
    1 | December 26, 2012 8:32 am

    save the baby humans!!!


  2. MikeA
    2 | December 26, 2012 9:00 am

    @ mawskrat:

    Only after they are born. When they are in the womb, the liberals can kill them with immpunity.


  3. waldensianspirit
    3 | December 26, 2012 9:12 am

    Obama obviously can’t even take instruction on how to swing a golf club


  4. 4 | December 26, 2012 9:21 am

    Come to think of it, Richard Nixon has a lot of these boondoggles to his credit.

    And look at the love he bought from the Left with it, for those whothink that we can buy votes with “moderation”.


  5. MikeA
    5 | December 26, 2012 9:22 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    totally agree with that sentiment. You can’t out liberal a liberal. you give them $100 mil, they will say you are killing the children by not giving them $200 mil.


  6. huckfunn
    6 | December 26, 2012 9:27 am

    Last night we were watching TV and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ran an ad that was nothing more than a rerun of no less than 3 disproved enviro-mental lies. They said that due to global warming (lie # 1) the arctic ice pack is melting at alarming rates (lie # 2) and as a result, the polar bears are dying and will be extinct by 2050 (lie # 3). I started shrieking at the TV and Mrs. Funn said no more rum toddies for me. :sad:


  7. buzzsawmonkey
    7 | December 26, 2012 9:31 am

    “We didn’t kill all of them…”

    —George Carlin


  8. 8 | December 26, 2012 9:33 am

    @ huckfunn:

    I did a marathon of various versions of “A Christmas Carol” until I figured that Dickens would have seen conservatives as Scrooge and Marley. So then I switched over to “The Song of Bernadette.” Best line in the film regarding the “peasants” who came to Lourdes searching for a miracle:

    “If you believe in God, no explanation is necessary; if you do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice.”


  9. citizen_q
    9 | December 26, 2012 9:41 am

    @ huckfunn:
    Don’t feel bad, My wife likes to watch the 11pm network news, she now pauses the show with our DVR and tells me it’s my bed time, she has gotten so tired of my pointing out bias and misleading reporting by omission and commission.


  10. 10 | December 26, 2012 9:42 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    My Christmas traditional movie is, “Bad Santa,” one of my favorites from the Coen Brothers.


  11. waldensianspirit
    11 | December 26, 2012 9:43 am

    Boohoo,Obama to take the “red eye” back to DC tonight. Since Congress can’t save the day, he has to


  12. waldensianspirit
    12 | December 26, 2012 9:43 am

    Obama must’ve read Paul Krugman’s blog and saw the solution is “Print and Spend!”


  13. buzzsawmonkey
    13 | December 26, 2012 9:47 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    I did a marathon of various versions of “A Christmas Carol” until I figured that Dickens would have seen conservatives as Scrooge and Marley.

    Not really. Read Orwell’s essay on Charles Dickens. It is interesting to see Orwell, the would-be Socialist, simultaneously attempting to decry Dickens’ non-political efforts at solutions to the problems of his day, and at the same time recognizing that Dickens’ solution—that men need to behave more decently to each other—is, in the end, a more realistic solution than the “socialist” prescription Orwell yearns for but is too honest to accept as possible.

    Dickens is not “political” in the sense of viewing Scrooge and Marley as “conservatives.” He is, rather, conservative himself in that he does not attack the social order, but believes that gratuitous hardness is a terrible moral evil.

    Take another look, too, at the films of Frank Capra: It’s a Wonderful Life is actually a re-telling of A Christmas Carol, with Clarence the angel playing the part of all three Christmas ghosts. Capra was very much a cinematic Dickens, in that he, too, advocated not so much “leftism” (though there are certainly leftist elements in hi work) as a greater kindness, of a more religious nature, in everyday life.


  14. 14 | December 26, 2012 9:47 am

    OT, but it’s snowing in the lower Shenandoah. And not that merely decorative stuff we had Christmas Eve, either; real “winter is here” snow. Good day to leave the Geo parked and drive the Subaru…


  15. huckfunn
    15 | December 26, 2012 9:53 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    @ citizen_q:
    Other than football and the occasional classic movie, TV is a complete waste of time. Hundreds of channels and 98% of it is pure crap.


  16. buzzsawmonkey
    16 | December 26, 2012 9:59 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    Hundreds of channels and 98% of it is pure crap.

    At least it’s pure.


  17. 17 | December 26, 2012 10:02 am

    @ huckfunn:

    I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “a vast wasteland.”


  18. waldensianspirit
    18 | December 26, 2012 10:03 am

    ~26 years ago I disconnected the TV


  19. 19 | December 26, 2012 10:03 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Nixon was a Leftist, but not Leftwing enough. The same happened to LBJ, Bush I and Bush II.


  20. huckfunn
    20 | December 26, 2012 10:07 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    @ Mike C.:
    A vast wasteland of clinically pure crap. And I’m just about tired of TCM running “Miracle on 34th Street” 4 times a day for the past 10 days.


  21. waldensianspirit
    21 | December 26, 2012 10:08 am

    drudge headline is Where is sHillary?


  22. buzzsawmonkey
    22 | December 26, 2012 10:08 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “a vast wasteland.”

    A term originally coined and promoted by Newton Minow, the chair of the FCC under John F. Kennedy; the father of public broadcasting; former head of the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin, which employed Bernardine Dorhn (Mrs. Bill Ayers), Michelle Robinson (now Obama), and Barack Obama; major supporter of Obama’s candidacy; currently the Walter Annenberg professor emeritus at Northwestern University (recall that Obama and Ayers worked together distributing Annenberg money).


  23. buzzsawmonkey
    23 | December 26, 2012 10:09 am

    huckfunn wrote:

    And I’m just about tired of TCM running “Miracle on 34th Street” 4 times a day for the past 10 days.

    Colorized, right?

    What’s really grating, though, is Edmund Gwenn endlessly repeating “Think of the children,” as if he were Reverend Lovejoy’s wife on “The Simpsons.”


  24. waldensianspirit
    25 | December 26, 2012 10:15 am

    The Bloody Mess at FreedomWorks

    Just what the GOP elites are salivating for


  25. waldensianspirit
    26 | December 26, 2012 10:21 am

    Christmas Greetings From A Leader


  26. waldensianspirit
    27 | December 26, 2012 10:24 am

    And to think Romney ran because he couldn’t stand the thought of a Conservative running and winning


  27. 28 | December 26, 2012 10:25 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Since we know he doesn’t have a handgun, it’d be a damned shame if a group of home invaders kicked in his door and robbed him with baseball bats or some such. A damned shame…


  28. huckfunn
    29 | December 26, 2012 10:25 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Whoa!
    Home Addresses Of NY Journalists Who Published Name And Address Of Every Handgun Owner In Two Counties…

    Getting tense

    Outstanding! It was a safe bet that someone would respond in kind.


  29. 30 | December 26, 2012 10:26 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Notice that Dick Armey perpetrated this. Never trust the GOP Elites. They are, at best, in it for their own gain, and what they want to gain most is love from the Left. They’d be better situated as “conservative” Democrats, but there is no real room for conservatives of any stripe in the hard-Left Democrat Party.


  30. 31 | December 26, 2012 10:27 am

    @ huckfunn:

    Yep. He wanted to play by these rules. Let’s see how he likes the game.


  31. waldensianspirit
    32 | December 26, 2012 10:28 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    Dick Armey is no doubt getting paid handsomely for this


  32. 33 | December 26, 2012 10:32 am

    @ huckfunn:

    These cretins from the media probably applauded when Zimmerman’s address was published. Not so fun, is it guys?


  33. 34 | December 26, 2012 10:34 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    And to think Romney ran because he couldn’t stand the thought of a Conservative running and winning

    Name the Conservative who you think could have won? Personally I don’t think anyone could have won. The GOP is dysfunctional and refuses to reach out to new voters. I do not see the Republican Party winning until 2020 at the earliest.


  34. 35 | December 26, 2012 10:35 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    No doubt. Probly not in cashy money, but in cred with the RINO Establishment. I’ve always said that the Establishment would rather be in the minority as long as they are getting invited to the right parties in Washington. Armey just guaranteed his boarding pass for the Establishment. That was probably his mission from the get-go. The Establishment views the base as the enemy more than the Democrats are. They will fight us ruthlessly. The base needs to fight back. We may not be able to leave and form as successful party of our own at this time, but dammned straight the Republicans can’t win anything without us. ROmney is proof that the Establishment’s way of running things is a failure.


  35. 36 | December 26, 2012 10:39 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    And to think Romney ran because he couldn’t stand the thought of a Conservative running and winning

    When he stood on that podium with the other 7 contenders for the GOP nomination, he made it a point to tell us all that he was the true conservative in the field. So much for the man’s character.

    Ann Coulter deserves to be shot right along with him. She jumped headlong into the whore’s bandwagon trumpeting Romney as the only non poser in the field.


  36. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | December 26, 2012 10:40 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    We may not be able to leave and form as successful party of our own at this time, but dammned straight the Republicans can’t win anything without us.

    The Republican establishment will try and prevent a breakaway by having RINOs declared an endangered species…


  37. 38 | December 26, 2012 10:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The GOP is dysfunctional and refuses to reach out to new voters.

    Say what you think will reach out to new voters. Taking over the media is not an option. Point blank, we don’t have the capital to buy CNN, let alone CBS or NBC. That is simply not doable. You clearly think that the low information voters are reachable, but you don’t articulate a real strategy for winniung them. “BE hip” isn’t a strategy, nor is it likely possible. The low info voters are not receptive to a policy of self-restraint and responsibility. Understand that Sandra Fluke and that other slut (the one who likened voting for Obama to losing her virginity. I don’t remember her name) constituted a winning strategy to reach out to lwo info women voters. Explain in detail how you reach those same women with a message of self-responsibility. I just don’t see it happening. What has to happen is the low info voters grow up a little bit. The government is doing all it can to assure that they never do.


  38. buzzsawmonkey
    39 | December 26, 2012 10:41 am

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    Ann Coulter

    She supports the right to bare arms.


  39. 40 | December 26, 2012 10:41 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    I think the GOP will split in 3 after 2016. The Establishment will form their own party, the Base their party and the Pragmatic Conservatives/Libertarians their own. Personally I think it’s best for everyone if the GOP just splits up.


  40. waldensianspirit
    41 | December 26, 2012 10:42 am

    via ace:


  41. waldensianspirit
    42 | December 26, 2012 10:46 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Flyovercountry wrote:
    Ann Coulter
    She supports the right to bare arms.

    She dates pathetic men


  42. waldensianspirit
    43 | December 26, 2012 10:47 am

    Rodan wrote:

    Name the Conservative who you think could have won?

    Any of the others including Luap Nor


  43. 44 | December 26, 2012 10:48 am

    @ Rodan:

    That guarantees Democrat hegemony until the country collapses. Which will be around 2025, at the rate we are going. It could happen before then. It really depends on whenever the Chnese get tired of lending us money for 0% effective interest rates and the hyper-inflation that comes from the prolifigate printing of money that Bernanke has adopted takes over. The coming crash is a s predictibleas the coming crash when you see a guy driving down the highway at 100 miles an hour while drinking straight whiskey from the bottle. You know it is going to happen, it is only the timing of the crash that is not predictible.


  44. 45 | December 26, 2012 10:48 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    WHat you want doesn’t work. The base is rapidly becoming an exclsuive club. It’s become screw younger voters and screw women. I have written reaptedly waht the GOP can do.

    Here’s a wrap up.

    1) Abandon the nation building concept. Stop always wanting to invade countries to help Islamic terrorists.
    2) Legalize Marijuana.
    3) Defend the right of gamers o bu whatever video game they want
    4) Support selling Birth Control over the counter
    5) Don’t go near any rape questions
    6) Don’t defend the economic interests of Millionaires who vote for Democrats.
    8) Turn Minorities against White Democrats.

    Is it easy, no. But you have to start somewhere.

    Personally, I think it’s time for the GOP o split up and see which faction will actually get more votes.


  45. 46 | December 26, 2012 10:49 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The coming crash is a s predictibleas the coming crash when you see a guy driving down the highway at 100 miles an hour while drinking straight whiskey from the bottle. You know it is going to happen, it is only the timing of the crash that is not predictible.

    Yup, the crash will happen when the US can not sell anymore Treasuries.


  46. 47 | December 26, 2012 10:50 am

    @ Rodan:

    Gingrich would have won this election.

    The dysfunction of the GOP is with its attempts to abandon its base in favor of pandering to liberal voters who aren’t voting for them anyhow. The smaller government message wins when delivered sincerely. Freedom is cool, and is way cooler than nanny wiping my nose for me. Mitt Romney lost due to the fact that he was never really comfortable with pretending to be something that he is not, which is a conservative. He never defended his positions passionately. There was so much left on the table as far as winning issues in this election that it sickens me to even think about. Domestic drilling, the nonsense of global warming, Obamacare, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, A123, Runaway EPA, Massive regulation, Dodd Frank, Arab Spring, and the list goes on seemingly forever, without much more than a peep from Mitt.

    Obama won a second time due mostly to a candidate who refused to actually take him on. This election was winnable, and the statement from Tagg Romney that his dad really did not want to win only serves to fuel my anger even more. Why did he run then?

    The problem with the GOP is that 68% of its base are conservatives, while the remaining 32% big government types are running the party. We need to have this fight already, or we conservatives simply need to split away and form our own party.


  47. waldensianspirit
    48 | December 26, 2012 10:50 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    And there doesn’t appear to be any ditch-it-if-brakes-failed gravel pit ramps


  48. brookly red
    49 | December 26, 2012 10:50 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Flyovercountry:

    I think the GOP will split in 3 after 2016. The Establishment will form their own party, the Base their party and the Pragmatic Conservatives/Libertarians their own. Personally I think it’s best for everyone if the GOP just splits up.

    that might actually produce an increase in votes if candidates run on multi-party tickets like if candidate A. is supported by the GOP, Tea Party & Conservative Party etc.


  49. 50 | December 26, 2012 10:51 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Ron Paul is Far Right loon.
    Santorum is a Theocratic Socialist, not a Conservative.

    The only 2 who fit the definition of Conservative were Gingrich and Perry. That said, If Romney did not want to run, he shouldn’t have.


  50. buzzsawmonkey
    51 | December 26, 2012 10:51 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    She dates pathetic men

    I have no clue whom Ann Coulter dates.


  51. buzzsawmonkey
    52 | December 26, 2012 10:55 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    One wonders why the parents would do something nasty to their children that a TV host suggests.

    The children are bratty as hell—but kids are often bratty. And for the parents to build up their expectations for the purpose of letting them down, and then unctuously try to justify their rotten behavior is cruel and stupid.


  52. waldensianspirit
    53 | December 26, 2012 10:58 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    One wonders why the parents would do something nasty to their children that a TV host suggests.
    The children are bratty as hell—but kids are often bratty. And for the parents to build up their expectations for the purpose of letting them down, and then unctuously try to justify their rotten behavior is cruel and stupid.

    Yea, the one little guy stood out happily exclaiming he’ll eat the half eaten peanut butter jelly sandwich


  53. 54 | December 26, 2012 10:58 am

    @ brookly red:

    Yeah I think even if there’s a GOP crack up That some candidates will be backed by the successor parties. If these new parties get a majority in the House, they can always forma coalition by supporting the same speaker.


  54. brookly red
    55 | December 26, 2012 11:01 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    Yeah I think even if there’s a GOP crack up That some candidates will be backed by the successor parties. If these new parties get a majority in the House, they can always forma coalition by supporting the same speaker.

    yes and it opens the door to voters that have one wedge issue but are otherwise pretty conservative.


  55. waldensianspirit
    56 | December 26, 2012 11:02 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    waldensianspirit wrote:
    She dates pathetic men
    I have no clue whom Ann Coulter dates.

    Try Bill Mahrer for one. A married Jimmy Walker for two. A whole slew of obnoxious proggies


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    57 | December 26, 2012 11:02 am

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    Gingrich would have won this election.

    But…but…baggage!

    Remember “baggage?” Every time someone mentioned Gingrich, people would say that he had “baggage.” Not that Obama didn’t, and doesn’t; it’s just that the media wouldn’t look at it.

    I think Gingrich should have played to the “baggage” thing. He should have done ads which showed him walking at the head of a whole line of porters wheeling trunk after trunk after trunk—and had the camera zoom in on the “luggage labels” pasted to the trunks, each of which would have shown some example of Gingrich’s experience.

    He could have shown dramatized crises—and gone into the right trunk for the tool to meet the crisis.

    He could have done a tag line about, “People say Gingrich has baggage. That’s because he carries the right tools for the job.”

    Gingrich could have turned “baggage” into a plus if he’d done it right.


  57. 58 | December 26, 2012 11:02 am

    @ Flyovercountry:

    The problem with the GOP is that 68% of its base are conservatives, while the remaining 32% big government types are running the party. We need to have this fight already, or we conservatives simply need to split away and form our own party.

    The problem is even that 68% is divided. Some like me are Libertarian leaning and against Wars for Islam. Others take a more doctrinaire view and support any war or nation building exercise.

    Take the Arab Spring, the GOP gave Obama cover. The majority of Republicans supporting intervening in Syria. I say we should split into 3 parties. It will make life alot easier.


  58. buzzsawmonkey
    59 | December 26, 2012 11:03 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Try Bill Mahrer for one. A married Jimmy Walker for two. A whole slew of obnoxious proggies

    Yucko.


  59. 60 | December 26, 2012 11:03 am

    @ brookly red:

    Yup, that is what I am thinking. It just makes life easier.


  60. 61 | December 26, 2012 11:03 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Nope, and this has been built up over many years. The Democrats have been pushing us this direction all of my life. The coming crash has been a long-term project of the Democrat Party, and has been fully supported by all of their leading candidates, includingall of their Senators and Congressmen. Once they finally got rid of Zell Miller, the patriotic wing of the Democrat PArty was as dead as Abe Lincoln. The Republicans have their share of the blame, especially the class of 2004-2006. They spent like Democrats, and let the Democrats run to their right and defeat them. Once they won, though, those Democrats showed their tue colors, and prooved that even at their most prolifigate the Republicans show more fiscal restraint than the Democrats. I think we are toast. This election was the last real chance to stop it that we had. Romney and the low information voters combined to blow it.


  61. Speranza
    62 | December 26, 2012 11:05 am

    @ Flyovercountry:
    @ Iron Fist:
    That magical, mystical, “base” you are so enamored with is shrinking and not expanding. Frankly there are not enough straight, white, Evangelicals to win elections with on a national level (in fact we have lost the popular vote repeatedly and there are no signs that it will recover). We turn off young people, single women, suburbanites, and we come across like a bunch of cranky scolds. The fact that Gov. Romney for instance felt the need to stick his nose into the Texas in state tuition issue told me that we are appealing to the wrong types of folks. If this “base” was not motivated to come out in 2012 after four years of neo Marxism then they are completely useless. Our message is muddled, confused, and we have put up piss poor candidates on the national and state level. If Todd Akin (and his puppet master Mike Huckabee) was so f**king selfish that he could not “take one for the team” and withdraw so that the GOP could defeat Claire McCaskill with a far more electable candidate then that tells me that the “base” is out of whack. Some where along the way we became enamored with this “purity of defeat” philosophy which has completely perplexed me. I also believe that too many people blindly follow what Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin tell them forgetting that those two are unelected radio talk show hosts. Forty years (Jan. 1973) next month after Roe v. Wade we are still obsessed over the legality of abortion.


  62. 63 | December 26, 2012 11:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    The Romney campaign was a fraud. It was a scam for consultants to make money and for Romney to add Presidential candidate to his resume.


  63. buzzsawmonkey
    64 | December 26, 2012 11:07 am

    brookly red wrote:

    voters that have one wedge issue

    A clever candidate would run an ad addressing the “wedge issues” as wedgie issues, saying, “People are talking about [insert wedge issue]. This is a wedge issue; my opponent is trying to give all of us a wedgie“—and show someone getting a really serious wedgie while the voiceover discusses/dismisses that issue as unimportant to the main issue(s) of the election.


  64. brookly red
    65 | December 26, 2012 11:07 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ brookly red:

    Yup, that is what I am thinking. It just makes life easier.

    not to mention it will increase the talent pool by giving us more options and totally phuc with the MSMs ability to demonize one party … win/win


  65. buzzsawmonkey
    66 | December 26, 2012 11:10 am

    Speranza wrote:

    If this “base” was not motivated to come out in 2012 after four years of neo Marxism then they are completely useless.

    Romney—or somebody—should have done an ad showing Barack Obama’s face and then showing that face growing Karl Marx whiskers while the voiceover described the communist elements inherent in Obama’s actions.


  66. 67 | December 26, 2012 11:11 am

    @ Speranza:

    Well said!


  67. waldensianspirit
    68 | December 26, 2012 11:12 am

    @ Speranza:
    The GOP elites picked Akin to continue; they didn’t want another Palin and Tea Party endorsement win. The ratio would start to get out of hand in Congress


  68. RIX
    69 | December 26, 2012 11:14 am

    The Dear Leader is flying back from Hawaii today
    & will arrive in DC in early morning.
    This is a attempt to show concern & you just know
    that he is having a hissy fit, having his vacation
    interrupted.


  69. 70 | December 26, 2012 11:15 am

    @ brookly red:

    Yup!


  70. buzzsawmonkey
    71 | December 26, 2012 11:15 am

    RIX wrote:

    The Dear Leader is flying back from Hawaii today
    & will arrive in DC in early morning.

    I wonder how many rounds of golf he’ll manage to squeeze in during this cliffhanger session.


  71. waldensianspirit
    72 | December 26, 2012 11:16 am

    I think a real candidate would have stood up and told the citizens that Obama is bilking them of trillions of dollars in an attempt to collapse the American economy for make our currency extinct and introduce a world currency; a UN currency with his face on it.


  72. brookly red
    73 | December 26, 2012 11:17 am

    RIX wrote:

    The Dear Leader is flying back from Hawaii today
    & will arrive in DC in early morning.
    This is a attempt to show concern & you just know
    that he is having a hissy fit, having his vacation
    interrupted.

    but don’t worry, Moochelle and the girls are staying behind to spend the average American’s income per hour…


  73. brookly red
    74 | December 26, 2012 11:18 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    I think a real candidate would have stood up and told the citizens that Obama is bilking them of trillions of dollars in an attempt to collapse the American economy for make our currency extinct and introduce a world currency; a UN currency with his face on it.

    that sounds a lot like Ron Paul LOL


  74. 75 | December 26, 2012 11:18 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    The GOP elites picked Akin to continue; they didn’t want another Palin and Tea Party endorsement win. The ratio would start to get out of hand in Congress

    That’s not true. The GOP Establishment was backing John Brunner. The Tea Party backed Sarah Steelman. It was The Democrats and the Santorum/Huckabee style Socialist Republicans who backed Akins.


  75. 76 | December 26, 2012 11:18 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    The problem was that Romney was not serious.


  76. 77 | December 26, 2012 11:20 am

    Speranza wrote:

    Forty years (Jan. 1973) next month after Roe v. Wade we are still obsessed over the legality of abortion.

    A base that was repeatedly told it wasn’t needed did indeed stay home, or at least a lot of them did. Would it have been enough to win if they hadn’t? We’ll never know, but as I have repeatedly stated you have to win your base to win a Presidential election. Lose your base and you can’t pull enough from the middle to win. That is simply the facts, and here you stand still telling the base to piss off. You know, I am tempted to take your advice, and let the Republican Party see how well it fares without its base. No, we can’t win elections by ourselves, but neither can the Republican Establishment. Do you really think you can win the Sandra Fluke vote by tellin gEvangelical Christians to piss off? You won’t, but you will get a landslide defeat for your efforts when the Evangelicals stay home. The Evangelicals, BTW, did come out for Romney despite his many efforts to distance himself from them. But he could have gotten more still to the polls if he’d taken their positions seriously.


  77. Speranza
    78 | December 26, 2012 11:20 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    The Romney campaign was a fraud. It was a scam for consultants to make money and for Romney to add Presidential candidate to his resume.

    Well he added “failed presidential candidate” to his resume. Nobody loves a loser.


  78. Speranza
    79 | December 26, 2012 11:22 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    The GOP elites picked Akin to continue; they didn’t want another Palin and Tea Party endorsement win. The ratio would start to get out of hand in Congress

    No, AKin was not thier candidate. There were were two other candidates who were far more electable and they got like 33% each and Akin won with 34%. The GOP Establishment to its credit tried to convince him to withdraw after the rape/abortion statements.


  79. 80 | December 26, 2012 11:23 am

    Oh goody! The SciFi channel is on!


  80. buzzsawmonkey
    81 | December 26, 2012 11:25 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The problem was that Romney was not serious.

    He may have been, or he may not have been; the problem is that whether or not he was serious in his own mind, he—like, I believe, Perry—ran his campaign according to the narrow, consultant-based parameters that have proven time and again to be ineffective.

    Now, I don’t know if the three ads I’ve proposed upthread would have been effective—though I think they would have been—but they would have been a hell of a lot more interesting than most of the crap that I saw produced during the campaign. I think that a campaign that would have unapologetically called out Obama for what he was would have rallied a lot more people, and that an ad campaign which was focused more on getting the down-and-dirty points across than on showing waving flags and twee small-town houses with picket fences would have at least held people’s attention.


  81. 82 | December 26, 2012 11:27 am

    @ Speranza:

    It will increase his speaker fees. That is why Gingrich and Cain ran.


  82. Speranza
    83 | December 26, 2012 11:27 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    A base that was repeatedly told it wasn’t needed did indeed stay home, or at least a lot of them did. Would it have been enough to win if they hadn’t? We’ll never know, but as I have repeatedly stated you have to win your base to win a Presidential election. Lose your base and you can’t pull enough from the middle to win. That is simply the facts, and here you stand still telling the base to piss off. You know, I am tempted to take your advice, and let the Republican Party see how well it fares without its base. No, we can’t win elections by ourselves, but neither can the Republican Establishment. Do you really think you can win the Sandra Fluke vote by tellin gEvangelical Christians to piss off? You won’t, but you will get a landslide defeat for your efforts when the Evangelicals stay home. The Evangelicals, BTW, did come out for Romney despite his many efforts to distance himself from them. But he could have gotten more still to the polls if he’d taken their positions seriously.

    Where are you getting your information that large parts of the “base” stayed home? Romney got more votes then McCain did in 2008. Any one whom you call the “base” who stayed home deserves the shit that Obama will dump on them the next four years as they have got to be the stupidest people on Earth and frankly they therefore are not worth kissing up to if they are that short sighted. I have my issues with Mitt Romney but as a man and as a president he was far, far better then Barack Obama will ever be. When I am personally suffering from the effects of Obamaism (with less money in my pocket) I at least can say that twice I voted against him and contributed to the guy who was running against him.


  83. waldensianspirit
    84 | December 26, 2012 11:28 am

    @ Speranza:
    Operative word being after; but before they were backing him. The money was flowing to him before and he was set to beat Haskel. they didn’t want the Tea Party or Palin endorsed candidate because they watch the numbers of such do not get elected and beyond what they can control


  84. 85 | December 26, 2012 11:29 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    I think the answer is to split the GOP in 3. The RINOs have their party, The base has it’s party and the Pragmatic Conservatives/Libertarians has their party. Let’s see which of those 3 gets more votes!


  85. waldensianspirit
    86 | December 26, 2012 11:30 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The RINOs have their party,

    The RINO cuckoo birds already have a party; called the Democrat Party


  86. 87 | December 26, 2012 11:30 am

    @ Speranza:

    The base is becoming an exclusive club. It doesn’t want to expand or get new members. The base has become, Country Club Republicans! :lol:


  87. 88 | December 26, 2012 11:32 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    This was, I believe, the most significant election we’ve had since 1864, but from his ads and demenor you wouldn’t think that Romney believed that. He wasn’[t as bad as McCain who, you’ll recall, tantamount to endorsed Obama for President by telling everyone that Obama would make a “fine President”. Romney wasn’t that bad, but he never stressed the significance of his loss. He never articulated any sense of urgency about his canidacy.


  88. 89 | December 26, 2012 11:33 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Ok so the RINOs join the dems. Then you have 2 parties, he base can have the Republican name and Pragmatic Conservatives/Libertarians have theirs. I think a split is needed. Nothing is holding the Right together anymore.
    The only thing that unites us is 2nd Amendment support.


  89. waldensianspirit
    90 | December 26, 2012 11:33 am

    “The base” are not the reason this civilisation is on the rapid decline


  90. 91 | December 26, 2012 11:34 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    This says it all about Romney.


  91. Speranza
    92 | December 26, 2012 11:35 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Operative word being after; but before they were backing him. The money was flowing to him before and he was set to beat Haskel. they didn’t want the Tea Party or Palin endorsed candidate because they watch the numbers of such do not get elected and beyond what they can control

    The polls showing him leading Claire McCaskill were actually being run by McCaskill supporters just so Akin would not drop out. Todd Akin -- like Sharron Angle in 2010 -- was the candidate that the Democrats worked to get nominated for the GOP nomination. Actually Akin is too stupid to dump on. It was would be king-maker Mike Huckabee who told him to stay in. After Akin’s verbal debacle what does it say about Richard Mourdock who went a bridge too far on the same subject and said it was “God’s will” if a raped woman became pregnant? It shows that we have candidates with serious self discipline problems.


  92. 93 | December 26, 2012 11:35 am

    New Thread.


  93. buzzsawmonkey
    94 | December 26, 2012 11:36 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Romney wasn’t that bad, but he never stressed the significance of his loss. He never articulated any sense of urgency about his canidacy.

    Quite true.


  94. 95 | December 26, 2012 11:37 am

    @ Speranza:

    Todd Akins and Sharon Angle were obvious false flag operatives planted by the Democrats. Yet they became martyrs, go figure.


  95. waldensianspirit
    96 | December 26, 2012 11:38 am

    @ Rodan:
    You call yourselves pragmatic but that’s without self reflection. And as your party forms you’ll find it suddenly will come up with more reasons for its own internecine fights. Some of you will be so high all the time you’ll be no help [*see your #2*]. Meantime the country will collapse


  96. buzzsawmonkey
    97 | December 26, 2012 11:39 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Again, the problem is in part that by the time someone gets to the point of running for President, they have become accustomed to following the dictates of the “experts” whose (self-appointed) job it is to run campaigns. They no longer trust their own instincts.


  97. 98 | December 26, 2012 11:41 am

    @ Speranza:

    I know people who wouldn’t vote for Romney because of his support for abortion, though he kind of, sort of disavowed that. They are not a majority of the base, but I think they are a significant minority. For religious reasons they would not vote for any pro-choice candidate. Romney probably could have gotten those votes if his conversion from pro-choice (strongly pro-choice) to nominally pro-life had been believable. But you are the one castigating the base fr not coming out. Iam simpy pointing out that Romney made no effort to win the base. None, really. Obama’s campaign was all about his base, and he ran it well. At the time I thought that Romney’s strategy might pay off, and he did win a majority of the independent voters. He did as well with independent voters as you have any reason to expect to. Obama did more poorly among the independents, but he maximized his base. A base that the Great Recession is decimating. If you think people like you and I have felt the effects of Obama’s Policies (and we have. I lost most of my net worth in the real estate crash), we are nothing to the 20-something Obama Voter who has lots of college debt and a degree in sexual unimorphism from an Ivy League school. Such a person has a very high debt and next to zero chance of landing a good job without retraining. Yet these same people voted for more of the same in huge numbers. Could they have been reached by a more targeted campaign? Perhaps, but they already knew their pain and chose to re-elect the architect of their pain. What more information could you have given them to impact their choice? They went with “cool” over “economically viable”, and they knew enough to know that was the decision that they were making.


  98. waldensianspirit
    99 | December 26, 2012 11:42 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Romney wasn’t that bad, but he never stressed the significance of his loss.

    On that note George W has been mute about his own tenure…


  99. 100 | December 26, 2012 11:45 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    If Romney had come out strongly for Gun Rights, would that have helped?


  100. 101 | December 26, 2012 11:45 am

    @ Rodan:

    Th eLibertarians have never elected so much as a single congressman to Congress. Why do you think it is a winning strategy to tell the Evangelicals, who have passed that boundry, to piss off?


  101. 102 | December 26, 2012 11:46 am

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    You call yourselves pragmatic but that’s without self reflection. And as your party forms you’ll find it suddenly will come up with more reasons for its own internecine fights. Some of you will be so high all the time you’ll be no help [*see your #2*]. Meantime the country will collapse

    At least we would not support going to war for al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. As for being high, what do you have to say about that Senator from Idaho who got caught with a DUI? He was Mr. Family values but turns out he had a drinking problem.


  102. waldensianspirit
    103 | December 26, 2012 11:50 am

    Rodan wrote:

    As for being high, what do you have to say about that Senator from Idaho who got caught with a DUI? He was Mr. Family values but turns out he had a drinking problem.

    One poor bastard. For your party there would be so many still sitting at green lights they’d not get to the polls on time on Nov 6 2016


  103. 104 | December 26, 2012 11:50 am

    @ Speranza:

    First off, I’m not an evangelical. That base, the one the Republicans believe they will magically win by making it a point to flip the bird to in every election, is unified by some very core and fundamental beliefs. If our politicians would just follow through on what Reagan himself observed, that smaller government, less regulation, the tremendous benefit for all of our nation when our citizens are freed to pursue their own best interests, lower taxes, protecting our interests abroad, and honoring our commitments to our allies are what’s best for our country.

    The problem with the current GOP is that the political leaders do not agree with those principles, at least not beyond the lip service they pay to them. Mitt Romney ran not to bring us as a nation back to that, but to secure the defeat of those concepts. So, don’t tell me that it is those beliefs that are causing the GOP to lose elections, when in reality it is the sell out of those principles that are losing elections.


  104. 105 | December 26, 2012 11:50 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Th eLibertarians have never elected so much as a single congressman to Congress. Why do you think it is a winning strategy to tell the Evangelicals, who have passed that boundry, to piss off?

    Many elected Republicans are Libertarian-conservatives. I am not discussing the Ron Paul kook. Just the type that want to be left alone. Rand Paul is a perfect example.

    I am not telling Evangelicals to take hike. On the contrary, I am for letting them have the GOP. I just want a new Party to represent my views. Is it to much to ask to have a Party that believes in leaving you alone and is against going to war for Islamic interest? That’s all I ask for.


  105. 106 | December 26, 2012 11:51 am

    @ Rodan:

    Probably somewhat, but people who were in it for the gun rights issue knew Obama was the worse choice, and Paul Ryan is as strong a Second Amendment supporter as they come. He i also very pro-Life, but the people I am talking abou tview abortion as a religious issue. Romney’s MOrmonism was a no-nevermind to these people, but they couldn’t pull the lever for a pro-choice candidate. Romney couldn’t make his prior pro-choice statements go away, and he never really attempted to reach out to those voters. As I said, I believe he could have won their vote, and I don’t think it woudl have cost him significantly with the independent voters that he won. But he did have to reach out to them and, inexplicably, he did not.

    He hd several flaws as a candidate, and we went over them exhaustively here onBlogmocracy. He wouldn’t disavow RomneyCare, thereby undercutting what should have been the strongest reason to vote for him. That alone may have bee enough to cost him the election with it being as close as it was. His stances on both abortion and gun control were incredibly flexible, giving rational people a reason to question his forthrightness on any issue. THese two issues are the key to winning the base, and Romney did a pretty credible job at the NRA Convention of dispelling the fears of the gun rights crowd. Had he had a similar moment with the pro-lifers, he might be PResident today.


  106. 107 | December 26, 2012 11:52 am

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Yeah keep thinking that. At least we would not be caught hitting on underage boys.


  107. 108 | December 26, 2012 11:53 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Gun Rights are the only thing that unites the Right at this point.


  108. waldensianspirit
    109 | December 26, 2012 12:00 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ waldensianspirit:
    Yeah keep thinking that. At least we would not be caught hitting on underage boys.

    Who are you referring to?


  109. 110 | December 26, 2012 12:03 pm

    @ Rodan:

    No, I disagree. I think Flyovercountry nails it. Romney didn’t artiiculate a strong smaller-government, greater individual rights platform. Romney ran as not-Obama. That was the sum of his message. He had advisors (think Karl Rove) telling him that being not-Obama in a time of real recession and high unemployment was enough to win the election. Maybe it even would have been so, but he then ran a campaign that didn’t focus “like a laser” on Obama’s many negatives. He tried to play it safe in the middle, but what he allowed Obama to do was run as a hard-Leftist unopposed by much of anything other than the “I’m not Obama” message. To the low information voters that wasn’t enough. Obama was “cool”, after all. What’s wrong with “cool”? Romney never told them.


  110. RIX
    111 | December 26, 2012 12:12 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    RIX wrote:
    The Dear Leader is flying back from Hawaii today
    & will arrive in DC in early morning.
    I wonder how many rounds of golf he’ll manage to squeeze in during this cliffhanger sessio

    n.

    More than most do in a year.


  111. 112 | December 26, 2012 12:33 pm

    On account of the fact that the GOP has sold out completely AND massive and successful vote fraud is a given from now on AND the media is totally corrupt, there is only one way our side can win, and it involves secession, which will most likely involve all-out civil war.

    I personally have the stomach for it but I’m too old to live to see the end of it. I doubt than very many other people can stand the idea, but all of the other alternatives have been exhausted long since.

    The only other alternative, for those who plan to stay here, is a descent into totalitarianism.


  112. 113 | December 26, 2012 12:35 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    As for being high, what do you have to say about that Senator from Idaho who got caught with a DUI? He was Mr. Family values but turns out he had a drinking problem.
    One poor bastard. For your party there would be so many still sitting at green lights they’d not get to the polls on time on Nov 6 2016

    I would like to remind everyone how much people drank in the former Soviet Bloc. If people have no reason to hope, they turn to the bottle.

    Senators are no exception.


  113. 114 | December 26, 2012 1:14 pm

    @ 1389AD:

    And by the way, it really does not take a whole lot of drinking to reach that legal limit of blood alcohol content. For this man to reach .11%, probably only necessitated 3 drinks, glasses of wine, or bottles of beer. I’m not saying that he should have been driving, but it’s hardly the stuff of power drinking not living up to his familial responsibilities quantities we’re talking about here.


  114. 115 | December 26, 2012 3:06 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ 1389AD:
    And by the way, it really does not take a whole lot of drinking to reach that legal limit of blood alcohol content. For this man to reach .11%, probably only necessitated 3 drinks, glasses of wine, or bottles of beer. I’m not saying that he should have been driving, but it’s hardly the stuff of power drinking not living up to his familial responsibilities quantities we’re talking about here.

    The drinking laws are getting tighter and tighter and tighter -- smells like creeping shari’a to me.

    Pretty soon, we’ll get busted if we drive after having received Holy Communion.

    Of course, nobody’ll test the CinC or the SOS to find out how much choom and cocaine, in the former case, or beer, in the latter case, they’ve been ingesting while on “duty.”


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David