But that's not a problem for conservatives.

#4 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-20 08:19 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

George W. pretty much killed of conservatism. Those people who later decided he was a big spending liberal first spent about five years confusing him with God. The love-hate whiplash is something they have yet to recover from.

else they will have to turn the reins over to Brain-Dead Biden or Cuomo, so shallow is their bench nationally.

#4 | Posted by uglyblinddate at

This sort of caught my eye. "Shallow bench"? What sort of depth of field led "conservatives" to think that the only thing they should do was nominate Mendacious Mitt, and his Wonder Horse, not to be confused with his wife?

Mitt Romney is still, and will likely remain for some time, a perfect symbol of "conservatives" confusion. He stood for nothing save for himself and they pretty much knew that. They hated him for years yet felt compelled for about nine weeks to pretend that they loved him entirely.

I'm looking forward to Mr. Rubio being the "conservative" nominee in four years. Don't tell me he will not, Its always possible to see when "conservative" fantasies in regards to electoral inevitability are ibn play.

"Conservatives" have already intimidated Rubio so much that he visibly hestitates when he starts to speak. He'll be a basket case by the time 2016 rolls around.

Paid for those wars yet?

#8 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-20 09:06 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Don't you know? You strip the family food budget and you just find those wars in a box of off-brand cornflakes, for free.

I just summarised the entire political philosophy of the modern Republican Party.

Mr Obama and his masses have stated both outloud and often just how bad the Sequester will be - what if it doesn't occurr as he/they have envisioned?

#14 | Posted by dogen at 2013-02

Sure, man. What if it's much worse?

It's bad enough to be a fanatic. But a stupidly self-destructive fanatic is too much. There are still some of us out here that recall what it was like when Republicans knew how to do something aside from play a game of Chicken.

The current Republican Party is doomed. There are some things more important than politics and winning elections, like principles, integrity, honesty, etc.,

#15 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-02-20 01

I agree. The GOP is going the to tease the economic dog once too often and all the rest of us will be bitten.

If the effects of the Sequester are anything as bad as has been warned, then I look forward to 2014, when Republicans once again apply wishful thoughts to poor polling and insist that they're going to kick butt, only to find that real people have already burned them in effigy.

I've noted the same surreal attitude on the part of Republicans in regards to the economy as they evinced towards an invasion of Iraq in 2003: "What could go wrong?"

#21 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02

You aren't conservative. We are going to have to think of a new name for you guys.

So why did the President propose it and then sign it into law if he thought it was bad?

#20 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-02-20

At the time, the Sequester was seen as an incentive to bargaining. It was a stupid idea. Now, its seen as a bargaining chip.

Where's the White House proposal?

#25 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-20 02:19 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You mean, their proposal to keep Republicans from deliberately tanking the economy of what is allegedly their own country?

You've kidnapped one of the neighborhood children. Now you critique parents for not coming to you with an appropriate ransom. Will you shoot the little tyke if you're not paid off? Well, that's what I hear you say you'd do.

Everyone here likes to trash Mitt but had he ran as the guy that was governor of Mass. Obama would have had one less vote.

#31 | Posted by THomewood at 2013-

And if he'd run as Vlad the Impaler, he might have a political career in Wallachia.

Really, you are telling me that the sky will fall and economic doom will proceed if we cut 85 billion out of 1.04 trillion budget. If our economy is so hopelessly tied to government spending, then it is time to cut that bond, or we all are doomed, no matter your party affiliation.

#36 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-20 02:32

I'll put you down as one of the people we'll blame the next recession on, if it occurs. No matter your Party. Fair enough?

Its an interesting attitude. No, I cannot fathom that suddenly witholding 85 Billion dollars from the general economy could possibly change anything.

If I heard correctly, the sequester is not even cuts, it's a reduction of the amount of increase over 10 years.

#40 | Posted by Daniel at 2013-02

If there's a recession following the Sequester, who gets the goat?

The Libertarian goat, the one you can mate with, if done privately, that goat.

Maybe no one gets the blame ? Perhaps the US economy is like a dream? The dream goes this way, the dream goes that. No one gets hurt, its just a dream.

I do have a question, though.....Libertarians wouldn't permit a public coupling with a goat? So.....You could never sell general admission?

#45 | Posted by Daniel at

What could a little hail do?

Is this an example of Liberal reasoning?

#46 | Posted by paneocon at 2013-02-20 02

A series of straightforward questions.

Time for the sequester to happen.

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02

Great. Accepting any personal responsibility for anything bad that happens after?

The guy is destroying the country right before our eyes and has no leadership skills at all---he leads the country like he hits a golf ball.

#50 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-20 02:59 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

"Mr. President, we Republicans are gouing to toss this match into the hay next Friday. Now, this may or may not cause the barn to burn down. But if it does burn, its merely evidence you're no leader."

Well, Zed, 5 years from now

#57 | Posted by matsop at 2013-

Your point of view is that if the country shoots off one of it's feet next week, it's better than losing an additional foot five years from now?

Your all talk and no ideas ZED. If sequestration is the end of life as we know it lets talk some real world numbers or would you rather just keep typing Obama talking points?

#61 | Posted by paneocon at 2013

I asked you if, provided things headed south because of the sequestration, who would get the blame?

I've already seen one fellow jump in and say it's Obama's, despite some clever Byzantine ju-jitsu on his part.

or the real impact of these cuts, if enacted.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2013

A lot of you guys are betting the farm on no impact. You seem to be very comfortable with that. But if there is an impact after all, who do I talk to?

I wish I could say I don't understand why this is a difficult question for you.

No, my point is that it's better to shoot off your foot now then have to absorb a bullet in your forehead in 5 years.

#68 | Posted by matsop at 2013

My view is that this is a false dichotomy. The sort of thing that people bring in to justify some desperate mischief in the present. Very like, strange to say, a lot of you are alleging Obama is attempting to do.

IOW, you're being whipped across the face by biased folks who want you to be afraid.....very very very afraid. And that's good enough for you, Zed.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02

That's the point I just made, EBERLY. I just expanded the time frame to five years.

Sure there will be a short term impact.

#73 | Posted by matsop at 2013

Well, thanks. Recognition of an impact. Now that's progress.

You seem to assert that people should be grateful to Republcans for getting them a job in five years after costing them one today.

People don't work that way. And it's not because they are kids, it's because they have kids.

The demoratic party and supporters are like children.

#79 | Posted by matsop at 2013

Hey, go ahead and toss that match, Mr. Maturity.

it's all about blame to you. The issue is irrelevant. completely.

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2013

Someone upthread was moaning that Republicans were not likely to receive adulation for the good effects of any allegedly necessary things theu do today.

Its politics. I've been asking if Republicans are going to stand-up for the idea of people taking some very bitter medicine.

You seem to be saying yes. Not in any direct or convincing way, but you are saying yes.

But come 2014 you won't recall this conversation.

If memory serves, you aren't a Republican, EBERLY.

I'm reacting to a class of people who make a stand behind every pile of manure because they're afraid they've only got a few piles left.

That's what the sequestration "issue" is. One more pile of manure that people are asked to wallow in for their own good.

I am amused, however, that Obama has been made a financiopath like Madoff. The last new description I saw of him was that of a child-sacrificing Satanist who faked a massacre in Connecticutt in order to procure fresh victims at the same time he was undermining the 2nd Amendment.

When did Liberals start caring about the Republican party? .

#87 | Posted by Olivenhain at

Liberals tend to believe in the concept of a loyal opposition. Modern Republicanism tends not to. With us or against us is the principle. Therefore, the pool of "genuine" Republicans becomes ever smaller.

Eventually the GOP will be whittled down to five meth freaks in West Virginia and Rush Limbaugh.

Financially, in 20 years, this country will no longer be the heavy weight we were but only a twig of a once mighty oak.

#92 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-20 03:58 PM

Maybe. Or perhaps Saudi America will be turning the tables. Among several developing features of life that make me not so afraid of people like you.

Didn't your parents model those virtues?

#95 | Posted by matsop at 2013-02-20 04:08 PM

So, you don't think I was found under a rock?