The GOP Plan » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

So true [e digicons]XD[/e]

Now that is funny and true.

Haha Nice!!

Ha! I couldn't stop laughing when I heard her say "we come up with ideas to help Americans". Truly hilarious!

Stupid political ad. Not very funny.

And lol at island dog for secretly making of fun of it all:-D

And lol at island dog for secretly making of fun of it all

Hardly a secret for someone that knows he won't leave his house unarmed.

But it's good that both sides can get a laugh at the same thing even if it is for different reasons.

Hmmmm. I found this one fairly amatuerish..... I would have gone for a bit more subtlety myself..... plus I think there might actually be legal troubles with Apple.

I found this one fairly amatuerish

Amateurish perhaps. I can also admit that the idea that "we come up with ideas to help Americans" may be a somewhat arrogant statement of the democrats’ position.

However what I do find interesting is that even the most rabid right wing supporters cannot claim that the portrayal of the republican position is inaccurate.

Of course now that I point it out someone is bound to make even that ridiculous claim, not that it would be believed by any rational person.

It’s a tactic that the right has been using for years that started with the tobacco industry. You don’t have to *prove* even the most ridiculous of claims, you just have to put them out there and then you can at least claim that there’s a controversy and disagreement among experts so we can’t do anything until that is resolved which of course it never will be. Who today realistically buys the premise that smoking is not harmful to the people that do it as well as those around them? But the tobacco industry successfully delayed over 20 years using these tactics.

They don’t even make the effort to disguise their intentions and methods. They are simply that arrogant and believe that the American people are simply that stupid. We haven’t yet proven them wrong so perhaps amateurish is precisely what’s needed here.

Take the Americans for Prosperity for example. Currently they (and their spinoff Patients First) spend their time as a conservative astroturf group that organizes tea parties and fights against any and all healthcare reform. These are the same folks that cheered Chicago’s loss of the Olympics and have a history of opposing anti-smoking legislation up to as recently as 2008.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

That is very true Mumblefratz.

I didn't have to watch the video. All I needed was to see it under the name Mumblefratz to know that it was pure insanity.

So how are the republicans blocking progress?

Let me get this right, there are 55 (I know there where 2 seats up I can't remember which way they went) democrates out of 100 in the senate and in the house 256 democrates out of 435. During 2003 and 2005 there were 51/55 republicans out of 100 and 229/232 out of 435. During 2003 and 2005 people said that the republicans went crazy and spend spend spend.

If the republicans were able to do this with such ease why can't the democrates EVEN CONSIDERING that their numbers are higher in the house.

I think we should be more concerned with trying to move out of the debt department instead of divisive moot non-sense.

The budget hasn't been actually balanced since Dwight was President.

So how are the republicans blocking progress?

Obtuse and disingenuous.

The budget hasn't been actually balanced since Dwight was President.

Untrue. Since a truly balanced budget requires that government expenditures precisely equal government income what you most likely are concerned with are budget deficits. But if that's your point you're also very wrong.

I would assume that you're basically OK with budget surpluses. Budget surpluses are used to *reduce* the national debt. The presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton were all years over which the national debt declined indicating primarily years of federal surpluses. Of course there were a few years scattered among them that had small deficits but the important result is that each of these presidents left office with the debt lower than they entered office.

FDR, Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush are the only presidents since the 40's under which there were substantial and sustained federal deficits. As far as Obama we have another 3 or 7 years before we know how that will turn out.

I think we should be more concerned with trying to move out of the debt department instead of divisive moot non-sense.

Moot nonsense? So where were you for the previous 8 years when the republicans were cutting taxes and spending like drunken sailors?

Oh I know. There's no problem with spending money while in debt as long as you're giving that money to defense contractors or spending it on war or giving tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans, but as soon as you try to spend a dime on everyday *people* then no, we can't do that. Hypocrite.

I didn't have to watch the video. All I needed was to see it under the name Mumblefratz to know that it was pure insanity.

And yet like a moth to the flame you feel compelled to reply.

That's OK. As long as you can maintain a modicum of civility you're free to do so. I don't require that you agree with me. I'm even OK with a certain amount of insult as long as it doesn't get too personal or too hateful.

I apologize if you found that to be a personal attack. I don't know a thing about you apart from your political views.

Mumblefratz

reply 6

And lol at island dog for secretly making of fun of it allHardly a secret for someone that knows he won't leave his house unarmed.

But it's good that both sides can get a laugh at the same thing even if it is for different reasons.

Who in their right mind leaves the house unarmed knowing that they are personally responsible for their own safety?

What are you supposed to do rely on the police who are there to investigate crimes after fact, and where in the US they have no duty to protect individuals?

This video is a joke, The current administration will spend in its first year or two more than Bush did in his eight. The democrats at the moment have the majorities in Congress, and still cant get anything done, thankfully. 2010 will be a fun election year now that people know hope and change were meaningless buzzwords.

*I'm am not a Republican either, but I do hold conservative values. McCain would be screwing the country up in his own way to be sure if he had been elected. Hopefully we can get meaningful change in 2012.

I apologize if you found that to be a personal attack. I don't know a thing about you apart from your political views.

No apology is necessary. Equating anything I post with insanity without needing to read it is slightly insulting, but not overly so.

I said what I said because although I felt what you said *wasn't* overly personal or hateful, I did want to indicate to others that there is some line over which I'm unwilling to suffer someone that only wishes to be a pain in the ass.

There's plenty of liberal bashing threads around if that is what you want to do. I assume that what's good for the goose is good for the gander as long as I keep my conservative bashing within a similar bounds of civility and impersonality.

2010 will be a fun election year now that people know hope and change were meaningless buzzwords.

By all rights 2010 should be a huge year for the republicans. However I'm not so sure they will really be able to capitalize on it. They have done absolutely nothing but become the "party of no" and to quote Alan Grayson they run a serious risk of becoming the "party of no one." More and more of the republican party seems to be just the lunatic fringe.

2010 is not all that far away but we should have meaningful health insurance reform by Christmas that includes a robust public option even if it may allow states to decide to opt out and if unemployment has peaked and starting to decline then perhaps the damage will not be as bad as most people anticipate. But we shall see.

In any case accomplishing either of those two items (health insurance reform and recovery from the 3rd Bush depression) let alone both before the 2010 elections really would be meaningful change.

Who in their right mind leaves the house unarmed knowing that they are personally responsible for their own safety?

Normal people.

Hopefully we can get meaningful change in 2012.

What, Cheney-Palin, Romney-Palin or Palin-Nobody?

More and more of the republican party seems to be just the lunatic fringe.

Sadly, I have to agree. There is a huge number of Americans (like 20% of us) who vote Republican only because there is no non-extreme alternative.

What, Cheney-Palin, Romney-Palin or Palin-Nobody?

Good god, I'd vote Democrat (again!) before voting for a ticket with Palin on it. They say nobody votes for the bottom of the ticket, but I'm convinced Palin is what caused McCain to lose as badly as he did. Hell, I'd vote for Clinton first.

This country needs a good centerist party. Get the Blue Dogs together with the moderate Republicans and form a party that's halfway between them, they'd clean up in every election.

Who in their right mind leaves the house unarmed knowing that they are personally responsible for their own safety?

Normal people.

Depends on how you define armed. I don't carry a firearm, but there is almost always at least one potentially lethal weapon on me at all times. Self defense is not the primary purpose, but it's always something that should be kept in mind. My little brother got to witness a SWAT assault on an apartment in his building. 90% of the registered sex offenders in the county live within 3 blocks of me. A recent home invasion nearby left five dead, three of them children. The fourth is *still* in critical care. There are lots of reasons to have legitimate concern for your personal safety.

If you want extreme, I've talked to people who think it is a Second Amendment violation to ban guns from courtrooms. They think it's unreasonable for the courts to disarm you when you are summoned. These are people who keep assault rifles in their trucks and a shotgun in the bathroom in case of burglars - in short, Mumble's view of the Republican base. He's wrong about that, these people think the Republican party is far too liberal.

I didn't find this very funny, maybe because I think both parties suck ass and are pretty much the same.

90% of the registered sex offenders in the county live within 3 blocks of me.

This must be at least a slight exaggeration but it sure sounds like you might at least think about moving.

All in all I'm fine with the right to bear arms. I'm also OK with a law abiding citizen carrying a licensed firearm, after all that's perfectly sanctioned by law. I do think that there is something a bit strange and something that is perhaps compensating for other inadequacies if someone won't leave their house without a firearm.

I mean if they live in a lousy neighborhood and are diamond couriers then perhaps I can understand otherwise I view it as a sign of weakness, not as a sign of strength.

To preface the following it's just a joke so please take it that way.

The conservative idea of healthcare reform is to be allowed to take their guns to the doctors office.

The reason I find it funny is that I can see the motivation for doing so. It would perhaps stop doctors from keeping you waiting so long and may also make them a little less sanctimonious.

People find Justin Long ("Mac") to be a smug and obnoxious hipster. I guess that is why the "Mac" persona used to represent Democrats in this video is so appropriate.

Fair enough.

However smug and obnoxious does not necessarily equate to incorrect.

It also appears you're unwilling to defend republicans by claiming that the republican position is mischaracterized.

I've noticed a fair number of responses between this and another thread where people will respond that they are conservative while taking pains to make it clear that they aren't republicans.

This seems to me to be very much like rats abandoning a sinking ship.

I suppose it's possible that many folks that respond this way are libertarians but in my opinion that in itself is pretty weak. You can delude yourself into believing that what you’re doing is using your vote to protest the inadequacies of both parties but that’s all you’re really doing is deluding *yourself*.

Voting libertarian on the right or green on the left is in reality abdicating your vote and essentially throwing it down the toilet or perhaps even worse if by draining votes from the side most compatible with your position you actually cause the side furthest from your position to win.

I fully understand that the two party system ends up being a bad choice for a huge range of people. I am often critical of the democrats but usually it’s because they are not progressive enough. That plus the fact that they seem unwilling to strap on a pair of balls and make a decision even when they’ve received what amounts to a mandate from the people to do so.

So while I view the democrats as the lesser evil of what is otherwise a bad choice, I have no issue being identified as a democrat because that’s how I vote.

This must be at least a slight exaggeration but it sure sounds like you might at least think about moving.

Only a slight exaggeration. With the way the laws are set up to require minimum distance from their residence to a school, there are huge areas of town that sinply aren't available for them to live in and high concentration in the areas that are allowed. Add in the fact that only one of the 96 registered offenders live outside town and it doesn't see all that shocking anymore.

I'm also OK with a law abiding citizen carrying a licensed firearm, after all that's perfectly sanctioned by law.

Not too many liberals see things that way. The rest of them see that as a reason to change the laws that allow it. For example, the DC law that made handguns illegal, then when challenged in court was ammended to make them legal only inside the home. And now is being challenged because they require permits to carry even in the home, but refuse to issue any such permit.

I just don't see why the whole gun control debate has to be soooo black and white. There are LOADS of wonderful NON-LETHAL self-defense gadgets out there, and LOADS of different kinds of guns. It may have been true 70 years ago that someone needed a shotgun to keep dangerous intruders from killing them, but times have changed.