Paul Ryan on the budget deal: Hey, we might fight on the debt ceiling instead

posted at 11:41 am on December 16, 2013 by Allahpundit

The key bit runs from 5:45 to 7:15. My pal Karl asks a good question:

The whole point of the budget deal, I thought, was to defuse a political landmine in the GOP’s path to the midterms. Take away the possibility of another shutdown, the thinking went, and you’re taking away an ace in the hole that desperate red-state Dems might otherwise play to save their seats next November. Mission accomplished. Except now Ryan’s saying that hitting the debt ceiling, which everyone understands would be far more damaging economically than a shutdown, is still in the picture if Republicans don’t have their as-yet-unspecified demands met. Krazy kwestion: Having folded at the last minute in a debt-ceiling standoff more than once before, why would the GOP’s threats be taken seriously this time? They just caved on the budget in order to avoid any new brinksmanship that might come back to haunt them in the midterms. Now Ryan’s vowing … much more dangerous brinksmanship early next year? Does anyone, starting with Obama and Harry Reid, think they GOP will stand firm this time knowing what sort of political backlash it could inspire?

Their plan, I guess, is to lie low for now and then take stock of ObamaCare’s status next month. Maybe Healthcare.gov will be running smoothly, insurers will be up to speed in processing applications, and middle-class people whose insurance was taken away in the name of booting them onto more expensive O-Care plans will have magically made peace with their predicament. Or maybe Healthcare.gov will have new technical problems due to the payment system not having been built yet, insurers will be overwhelmed by the combo of backlogged applications and HHS’s endless half-assed seat-of-their-pants “fixes,” and new O-Care enrollees will be up in arms over their new deductibles and shrinking provider networks. In that case, the GOP might conclude — maybe not unreasonably — that O and his caucus will be so frazzled by ObamaCare screw-ups and what it might mean for the midterms that they might agree to some sort of delay. What that delay would look like, though I have no idea; the more people who sign up, the more impossible a mid-enrollment-period delay becomes. Even a popular GOP demand, like agreeing to scale back the “risk corridor” provisions in the law so that HHS can’t bail out insurers, could cause chaos if Dems acquiesced in it now. I think they and O have already passed the point of no return on ObamaCare. Which is great news for the GOP insofar as it means their opponents are fully committed to stay the course through next year’s havoc all the way up to the midterms. But it also means that O’s unlikely to make any debt-ceiling deals.

Maybe Ryan knows that and the point of the next round of brinksmanship is simply to make the Landrieus and Pryors in the Senate squirm by forcing them to either stick by the O-Care clusterfark or humiliate O by voting with the GOP. If nothing else, once Republicans do cave, they can use it as a campaign commercial for their audience of grassroots righties to illustrate why it’s so important to get the Senate back in GOP hands in 2015.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Apparently needed to rest.

socalcon on December 17, 2013 at 9:29 AM

I guess I’m own my own.

wolly4321 on December 16, 2013 at 11:37 PM

No sir, you are not.

Midas on December 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Or support the following candidates directly.

SUPPORT CONSERVATIVES

Fortunately, we have a choice. We can work together to promote the most promising conservative candidates in the country.

To help you, we have identified five outstanding U.S. Senate candidates who will stand up to the big spenders in both parties.
•Matt Bevin (R-KY)
•Chris McDaniel (R-MS)
•Ben Sasse (R-NE)
•Rob Maness (R-LA)
•Milton Wolf (R-KS)

These are full spectrum conservatives who understand that the oath of a senator is to “support and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

onlineanalyst on December 16, 2013 at 5:06 PM

As I have pointed out many, many times – even if all of these individuals are elected and even if they all remain conservative (highly unlikely), it will accomplish nothing.

The GOP itself will still not be conservative, will still raise spending, pass amnesty, and increase gov’t.

So, what does this accomplish – besides easing your conscience as you pull the lever for an “r” – which is apparently, again, all some people care about.

Isn’t it better to move fight to move the GOP to the right? You way will not accomplish that. It will just prove to the GOP that they can keep playing you as you keep voting for it.

The ONLY way to move the GOP rightward within any kind of reasonable time-frame to accomplish anything is to show the GOP that conservatives will withhold their votes.

Those who continue to support the GOP hoping against hope that it will pursue any conservative agenda are a) deluding yourselves and b) actually helping the GOP remain as liberal as it is.

“a” because you are doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

“b” because by doing “a”, you empower the GOP to continue acting as it always has acted.

Many disagree with me on this – I understand that. But, those who disagree and scream and gnash their teeth stating that “we must vote for the GOP or the dems will win” have never responded to the arguments above. You ONLY ever say “the sky will fall if we don’t vote for the GOP”. You never refute that the GOP is not conservative and will not act conservative even if we vote for it this time around. Because, of course, you cannot.

Which makes it stunning that you continue down this path.

Monkeytoe on December 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Where is this “establishment”
It’s just a straw man used to herd the gullible.

V7_Sport on December 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM

The “establishment” is:

- the elected GOP members of congress;
- to a lessor extent – state GOP elected legislators and governors;
- the house and senate GOP leadership;
- all GOP congressional aides/staffers;
- those working directly for the GOP (the Chairman, etc);
- professional GOP campaign advisors and the like;
- big-money GOP donors.

Now, it is not some kind of well-oiled machine, but it does generally control the GOP – where money is spent, what advertising to use, what strategies to follow, what agenda to pursue, what candidates to support (in primaries and in general elections).

Obviously, not everyone who can be said to be part of the establishment has the same power or say. Boehner and McConnell have much more power over the GOP legislative agenda than most others. And some – particularly those who are actually conservative a la Ted Cruz – have no real power within the establishment and instead are undermined at every turn by the establishment.

And, the establishment is not conservative. It never has been conservative. In fact, Boehner and McConnell (and Ryan) have declared that as loudly as they can. they are fighting harder against conservatives than they ever have against Obama or liberalism.

If you cannot see that, you are willfully blind.

The people that deny that an establishment exists within the GOP are odd, to say the least. Do you honestly believe that there is no establishment? No group of people who make decisions for the GOP? that the GOP is what, anarchy? without any leadership or direction? Who makes decisions regarding where money is spent? Who makes decisions regarding the legislative agenda?

It is so silly to claim there is no establishment, it shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

Monkeytoe on December 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Which makes it stunning that you continue down this path.

Monkeytoe on December 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Said it before, say it again – I agree 100%.

Midas on December 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM

If you are an immigrant to this country you owe it to us not to deliberately trash it, as you are advocating by electing democrats even though you supposedly believe in conservative principles. It’s a stupid bird that sh!ts in it’s own nest, especially when the plan is to clean house. You owe me and those 5 kids that won’t have anywhere near the same opportunities that were given to you by the sweat and blood of my ancestors. You owe a lot (as do I) and that you don’t see that is pretty narcissistic.

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 2:03 AM

Hey Jacka$$ (like the way she says it at 1:25 & 2:25) How did you come to the a$$sumption that I’m an immigrant? Maybe I’m more red-blooded than you ever could be and my lineage on this continent goes back thousands of years? Or maybe I’m more blue-blooded than you going back thousands of years in the Old World. Or maybe my linage goes back thousands of years in the “darkest” of Africa? All i said was that growing up in different locations gave me insight and a deep appreciation for the manifest uniqueness that is America.

I want to preserve what the Godly founding fathers bestowed unto us. And yes, even they appreciate the fact that occasionally the tree of liberty needs to be watered by blood. We’ve had that twice and if things keep going the way they are now, we’ll see it again. Not because I want it, but because it is inevitable. What do you think the moocher class will do when their EBT runs out??? They’ll do the same as what happend in Zimbabwe and other countries when their dictators and presidents-for-life can’t deliver on their promises of growth thru reparation.

You say you’re patriotic? Fine, I never questioned it, nor did any other. But I’ll say this, you’re no more patriotic than I. I served, but never in a warzone – just a matter of timing in between Vietname & Gulf Wars, yet I’ve been in sevral warzones, to include getting shot at.

You say you’re conservative, but what you spew is about as convincing as a democrat who happens to be pro-life claiming conservative bonafides. It’s funny that for all your reams of verbiage, you never meet anyone’s key points head on. Instead, like an ankle-biting Chihuahua, you lock onto a turn of a phrase and hawk it as incontrovertible evidence of treason.

You stupid Jacka$$!!!

Since you have no problem ascribing character flaws and motives to others based on a point of disagreement, let me make up something about you – you’re a tailhooker and got run out of the Navy in the mid-90s, how dare you grope red-blooded American women and deprive them of their right to go thru life unmolested and/or leered at? On second thot, you’re an impotent wannabe flyboy and never even made it to flight school, hence your passion for collecting dream photos of your father.

AH_C on December 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM

“Interpretation” of the supremacy clause by whom? The courts, nitwit. And as far as that goes, I addressed that falacious interpretation upthread. Unconstitutional laws are not “made in pursuance” of the constitution.
gryphon202 on December 17, 2013 at 12:50 AM

Mr. Hayne, Mr. Webster has prepared the following response just for you:

But, Sir, the people have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. There are in the Constitution grants of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end? By declaring, Sir, that “the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This, Sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The people so will it. No State law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall decide this question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal? This, Sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, “that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” These two provisions cover the whole ground. They are, in truth the keystone of the arch! With these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court.

rukiddingme on December 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM

I guess I’m own my own.

wolly4321 on December 16, 2013 at 11:37 PM

No sir, you are not.

Midas on December 17, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Right, you have plenty of company over at move on and media matters, go bend over for Soros.

Re.Monkeytoe

The “establishment” is:

- the elected GOP members of congress;
- to a lessor extent – state GOP elected legislators and governors;
- the house and senate GOP leadership;
- all GOP congressional aides/staffers;
- those working directly for the GOP (the Chairman, etc);
- professional GOP campaign advisors and the like;
- big-money GOP donors.

So that would include Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and a great deal of the voters at large.

Now, it is not some kind of well-oiled machine, but it does generally control the GOP –

You have loosely defined the “Establishment” as “Republicans”. Of course they control the GOP, they are the GOP.

where money is spent, what advertising to use, what strategies to follow, what agenda to pursue, what candidates to support (in primaries and in general elections).

Who is stoping you or anyone else from doing that?

And some – particularly those who are actually conservative a la Ted Cruz – have no real power within the establishment and instead are undermined at every turn by the establishment.

Sounds like someone talking about chemtrails or the illuminate. (neither of which exist) Ted Cruz has plenty of power within what you call the Establishment. He was basically the driving force behind the shut down. Should every member of congress have pure equality? Perhaps, but there is a hierarchy and their has been since the founding.

And, the establishment is not conservative.

By your definition, some are, some aren’t. Now what? Burn it down or pull it in your direction?

In fact, Boehner and McConnell (and Ryan) have declared that as loudly as they can. they are fighting harder against conservatives than they ever have against Obama or liberalism.

Well, no, they haven’t done that at all. Please provide the quotes where they have declared that.

Do you honestly believe that there is no establishment?

I believe it’s a catch phrase, being marketed to people who are p!ssed off and don’t know where to channel their anger in a constructive manner.

No group of people who make decisions for the GOP? that the GOP is what, anarchy? without any leadership or direction? Who makes decisions regarding where money is spent? Who makes decisions regarding the legislative agenda?

Republicans. Are you a member of the party? If not you should join.

It is so silly to claim there is no establishment, it shows either ignorance or dishonesty.

I’m not going to be lead around by the nose by my frustrations, usually to enrich the self proclaimed “non establishment” campaign war chests or organizations; Especially when they have a vested interest in being the underdog to rally the perpetually outraged. I’m interested in results.

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Said it before, say it again – I agree 100%.

Midas on December 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM

What you have said, Idiot, is that you are fine with voting for Obama. You are a democrat, screwing with the weak minded..

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Re.AH_C

How did you come to the a$$sumption that I’m an immigrant?

It was yet another question you dodged.

Maybe I’m more red-blooded than you ever could be and my lineage on this continent goes back thousands of years?

You are advocating wrecking the country and voting to that end. That’s the issue.

Or maybe I’m more blue-blooded than you going back thousands of years in the Old World. Or maybe my linage goes back thousands of years in the “darkest” of Africa?

Or maybe you are a blowhard.

All i said was that growing up in different locations gave me insight and a deep appreciation for the manifest uniqueness that is America.

That you have acknowledged that you hope to “injure”.

I want to preserve what the Godly founding fathers bestowed unto us. And yes, even they appreciate the fact that occasionally the tree of liberty needs to be watered by blood.

See, out of your crazy hole, that’s just a platitude spewed from a loon in the safety of your parents rec-room. You don’t “preserve” anything by working to hasten it’s demise, idiot. Can’t you see that the only difference between you, William Ayres, Osama bin laden and Timothy McVeigh is a matter of degree? They wanted to destroy the USA to remake it in their own image; they just had the guts to take it to the next step. They thought what they were doing was right. So what’s the difference other than they had the guts too take the next step?

We’ve had that twice and if things keep going the way they are now, we’ll see it again.

You better pray that it doesn’t, McVeigh, As the resident squishy RINO it will be my gleeful pleasure to drop my ord on your tree house and vaporize you and the rest of the idiots who think you gain power by losing elections. The national IQ average would go up a few points in, literally, a flash. No more Red Dawn games for you, just a mess of scorched canned goods, x-box games and Vaseline jars.

Not because I want it, but because it is inevitable.

Bull, it’s not inevitable. Stop trying to make it inevitable.

What do you think the moocher class will do when their EBT runs out??? They’ll do the same as what happend in Zimbabwe and other countries when their dictators and presidents-for-life can’t deliver on their promises of growth thru reparation.

The country has faced worse then the loss of food stamps, chicken little.

You say you’re patriotic? Fine, I never questioned it, nor did any other. But I’ll say this, you’re no more patriotic than I.

You are certainly not a patriot and you have acknowledged as much when you admitted that you were advocating something that would deliberately injure the country.

I served, but never in a warzone – just a matter of timing in between Vietname & Gulf Wars, yet I’ve been in sevral warzones, to include getting shot at.

On the off chance you aren’t lying; So did Tim McVeigh, Benedict Arnold was one of our best generals… Your point?

It’s funny that for all your reams of verbiage, you never meet anyone’s key points head on. Instead, like an ankle-biting Chihuahua, you lock onto a turn of a phrase and hawk it as incontrovertible evidence of treason.

I have addressed each and every point that you have written, line by line, so that’s another lie.

You stupid Jacka$$!!!

So persuasive. I want to join your militia and start the brave war on RINOS by voting for socialists… Oh wait, you are a fool.

Since you have no problem ascribing character flaws and motives to others based on a point of disagreement, let me make up something about you – you’re a tailhooker and got run out of the Navy in the mid-90s,

LOL, late ‘90s thank you. How was your tour on the x-box? WOLVERINES!

On second thot, you’re an impotent wannabe flyboy and never even made it to flight school, hence your passion for collecting dream photos of your father.

Hey, dad would have made short work of you too. No one likes a traitor, you may be able to gather a few misguided people here to vote against their interests here, but sooner or later they will realize that you are an enemy to the Constitution who is living in a fantasyland.

So McVeigh…, are you going to take your jihad to the next level? Or are you just going to pat yourself on the back for courageously voting for socialists?

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Dude,, STFU.

SERIOUSLY,, you are an idiot.

Buh bye now, sweetheart.

Try to keep up with the new threads. :)

wolly4321 on December 17, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Dude,, STFU.

SERIOUSLY,, you are an idiot.

Buh bye now, sweetheart.

Try to keep up with the new threads. :)

wolly4321

Good of you to take time from your fryolator to enlighten us all with the effluence of someone who doesn’t have a GED.

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 11:14 PM

Rush is right. The GOP is blindly terrified of a government shutdown. The Republican Party would cut their throat en masse rather than stop spending for one minute.

Mr. Grump on December 18, 2013 at 1:32 AM

So that would include Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and a great deal of the voters at large.

Wow, you are stupid. Can’t comprehend the written word, can you?

You have loosely defined the “Establishment” as “Republicans”. Of course they control the GOP, they are the GOP.

No, I did not. Again, you don’t have reading comprehension down, do you?

Stupid.

I’m not going to be lead around by the nose by my frustrations, usually to enrich the self proclaimed “non establishment” campaign war chests or organizations; Especially when they have a vested interest in being the underdog to rally the perpetually outraged. I’m interested in results.

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

No, you are interested in the GOP winnnig. What you are clearly completely and utterly uninterested in is results. You insist on doing the same thing over and over and over and claim to want different results. that is both stupid and insane.

You are not really worth discussing anything with both because you are completely disnonest (claiming that republican voters are the “establishment” and there is no other establishment. I guess that explains why the gop pursues things, like amnesty, that republican voters clearly disapprove of? you are either ignorant or completely dishonest. Or, more likely, both.

How one claims that the party leadership does not constitute the “establishment” defines you as an idiot.

You keep voting GOP. Obviously, all that matters to you is an “r”. Actual conservative ideas? Not at all. You could care less.

So, you have declared yourself a liberal. Fine. enjoy that. Be a liberal. vote for big gov’t, debt, amnesty. Just, for once in your life, be honest about it and admit that is what you are voting for. Stop pretending that you are conservative.

I am sick of these GOP loyalists pretending to be conservative and being completely dishonest about it. You obviously could care less about America as you want to see America go deeper into debt while the gov’t grows exponentially and invites in millions more illegal aliens through amnesty. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who hates America more than your type.

Monkeytoe on December 18, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Hey, dad would have made short work of you too. No one likes a traitor, you may be able to gather a few misguided people here to vote against their interests here, but sooner or later they will realize that you are an enemy to the Constitution who is living in a fantasyland.

So McVeigh…, are you going to take your jihad to the next level? Or are you just going to pat yourself on the back for courageously voting for socialists?

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM

You are the traitor. You are the one voting for higher debt, more spending, bigger gov’t and amnesty. That is traitorous. You are anti-American. Why do you hate America? Why do you vote for a party that is helping the democrats destroy America?

Why are you a traitor?

Monkeytoe on December 18, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Or are you just going to pat yourself on the back for courageously voting for socialists?

V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM

You are the one voting for liberal enablers. For bigger gov’t, increased spending, increased debt, more “user fees” and the like. that is socialism.

I love that you believe voting for the GOP = patriotism.

Just how stupid are you?

Monkeytoe on December 18, 2013 at 8:10 AM

As far as arguing there is no “establishment” –

there is always a heirarchy in everything. Whether at work, in a club, in a social group – whatever.

there are people in that entity who are going to make the decisions, who have more sway, who control the group. To claim otherwise is delusional.

In the GOP, the people who make the decisions, control the money, decide where the money gets spent, decide which candidates get the money, decide what legislative priorities are – are not “everyone registered as a republican” – to make that claim is asinine.

The people who decide the GOP’s legislative agenda are most certainly not the GOP voters. Amnesty, the Ryan Compromise, increased spending and a plethora of other things the GOP pursues are not what the GOP voters want. In contrast, a plethora of things the GOP voters want are NOT pursued by the GOP.

Also, determining who gets funds from the party is not decided by the GOP voters. The GOP voters do not choose the Chairman of the party.

So, there is some group that makes these decisions. And that group is not “everyone in the party”.

So this claim that there is no establishment is ridiculous. the establishment is not an entity as solid as the Senate – with certain voting rules and established members for set terms. it is more amorphous than that. But, it is pretty easy to see who has pull and is part of the establishment. And, by looking at decisions made (legislative agenda, funding of candidates, etc) it is easy to see that the establishment is not conservative.

the establishment is generally people who have only one real agenda – to win elections. Which may seem like a good agenda, but it is only good, from a conservative point of view, if once the election is won the GOP pursues a conservative agenda. That is not the case. Most politicians and their staffers and other professional campaign people believe that the easiest way to win elections is to give people free stuff and not take anything away from anyone (they are probably right that this is the easiest way). Thus, their default is to increase spending and not decrease gov’t. thus, that is the GOP establishment default. And that is not good enough.

It is amusing that people are so naive as to believe that the GOP is some kind of pure democracy with each decision being made by “everyone in the GOP” as a whole.

Monkeytoe on December 18, 2013 at 8:32 AM

You have no idea the damage Paul Ryan has done to the republican party. His dismissive and condescending attitude towards military pensions has riled up a former reliable republican voting block. Mr. Pathological liar, who never served his country, outside of a part-time job for $176,000 per year, threw veterans under the bus. Worst of all, he LIED (worse than Sebelius) that this was the only option.

Vets are big voting blocks in swing states. BIGGER than hispanics.

What ‘budget wonk’ votes for 2 wars that weren’t paid for then loots the military pension benefit? Then lies about the numbers?

TAARP on December 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM

It’s funny that for all your reams of verbiage, you never meet anyone’s key points head on. Instead, like an ankle-biting Chihuahua, you lock onto a turn of a phrase and hawk it as incontrovertible evidence of treason.

I have addressed each and every point that you have written, line by line, so that’s another lie.

Since you have no problem ascribing character flaws and motives to others based on a point of disagreement, let me make up something about you – you’re a tailhooker and got run out of the Navy in the mid-90s, ……..

LOL, late ‘90s thank you. How was your tour on the x-box? WOLVERINES!

On second thot, you’re an impotent wannabe flyboy and never even made it to flight school, hence your passion for collecting dream photos of your father.

Hey, dad would have made short work of you too. No one likes a traitor, you may be able to gather a few misguided people here to vote against their interests here, but sooner or later they will realize that you are an enemy to the Constitution who is living in a fantasyland.So McVeigh…, are you going to take your jihad to the next level? Or are you just going to pat yourself on the back for courageously voting for socialists?
V7_Sport on December 17, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Line by line eh? So why skip the line about what tailhookers did?

Since you have no problem ascribing character flaws and motives to others based on a point of disagreement, let me make up something about you – you’re a tailhooker and got run out of the Navy in the mid-90s, how dare you grope red-blooded American women and deprive them of their right to go thru life unmolested and/or leered at? On second thot, you’re an impotent wannabe flyboy and never even made it to flight school, hence your passion for collecting dream photos of your father.AH_C on December 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I’ll bet you still believe to this day that tailhooking is as patriotic as your mum’s homemade apple pie.
Hmm? Did you get busted but not enough to get cashiered in the aftermath and after a few years realized that you’ll never advance and so retired? Or did they have to force you out kicking and screaming? Methinks the latter. A pathetic sockpuppet.

AH_C on December 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM

You are the traitor. You are the one voting for higher debt, more spending, bigger gov’t and amnesty. That is traitorous. You are anti-American. Why do you hate America? Why do you vote for a party that is helping the democrats destroy America?

Why are you a traitor?

Monkeytoe on December 18, 2013 at 8:08 AM

Nope, I didn’t vote for any of that. I didn’t vote for Obama and I think the people advocating doing so knowing that he will severely damage the country are scum. I’m not fond of liars either. Or sanctimonious half-wits. In short: I don’t like you.

In the GOP, the people who make the decisions, control the money, decide where the money gets spent, decide which candidates get the money, decide what legislative priorities are – are not “everyone registered as a republican” – to make that claim is asinine.

The GOP voters do not choose the Chairman of the party.

I think you are conflating the Republican National Committee with the GOP. They are separate entities. Different things. LOL. You are welcome to join the RNC and vote for chairman if you wish…
The republican platform is agreed to during the convention, which outlines legislative priorities, etc. The convention is made up of regular people from all over the country, not some sinister cabal out to screw you. You are welcome to join up and make your voice heard there if you wish, instead of beclowning yourself here.

t is amusing that people are so naive as to believe that the GOP is some kind of pure democracy with each decision being made by “everyone in the GOP” as a whole.

What’s amusing is how ignorant you are yet how smug you are about it. You must be a democrat!

V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 3:38 AM

You Monkeytoe

So that would include Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and a great deal of the voters at large.
Wow, you are stupid. Can’t comprehend the written word, can you

Palin worked for the GOP, Limbaugh as contributed to them… As have many voters. Guess your definition fails. Shocked.

No, I did not. Again, you don’t have reading comprehension down, do you?

Stupid.

OK, so how are these donors and staffers injuring you? What’s stopping you from donating and countering their influence with something more effective than whining here and asserting that I am stupid? Is what you are doing effective?
No, you are interested in the GOP winnnig.
I am interested in averting/lessoning the s#itstorm that has been foisted on us by democrat control of the congress and presidency.

What you are clearly completely and utterly uninterested in is results.

Thanks for telling me what I am interested in, you are wrong. Seems that the only way you can go about this is to re-frame my argument into something it isn’t. That’s disingenuous.

You are not really worth discussing anything with both because you are completely disnonest (claiming that republican voters are the “establishment” and there is no other establishment

Again, a lie. I wrote that was the way that you defined it. “You have loosely defined the “Establishment” as “Republicans”. Did you read that? Good. What I believe is this “establishment” that you rail against is a catch all phrase for anyone who disagrees with you. I believe that in that sense, there is no “establishment” as it can change according to your, or whomever is shaping your opinions whims. I believe that, for instance, the idea that the “establishment” chooses your candidates (something that I have seen over and over here) is moronic. The primaries do. I believe you have politicians blaming this “establishment” when they do something stupid that makes them look foolish and I believe that those who eat up what they want to hear believe that this “establishment” is what is at fault for every stubbed toe.
This “establishment”, as it is used here is a bogeyman and adults don’t need bogeymen. Insist on a better bedtime story because this “establishment” isn’t going to come out at night and harass you if your night light burns out.

I guess that explains why the gop pursues things, like amnesty, that republican voters clearly disapprove of?

Is “Amnesty” in the GOP plank? You would have had it long ago if it weren’t for the GOP. What substantive thing have you done to stop amnesty? Are you a member of FAIR? Or is bitching here and trying to assert how smart you are going to stop it?

How one claims that the party leadership does not constitute the “establishment” defines you as an idiot.

So who is that, specifically? Reince Priebus? Is he at fault for all that ails you? Did he set the tone? LOL.

You keep voting GOP. Obviously, all that matters to you is an “r”. Actual conservative ideas? Not at all. You could care less.

If you can’t allow yourself to understand my argument fine, if you are just going to reframe it into something it never was you should just STFU. Regardless, idiot, you don’t promote conservative ideals by electing democrats. If, and who knows if it’s your objective, but if promoting conservative ideals is your objective you are going to need more of a brain and more of a backbone, but that’s harder than whining on hotair.

V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 3:39 AM

AH_C

Line by line eh? So why skip the line about what tailhookers did?

Because that wasn’t a point, it was drivel about something you have no idea about. You were presuming to judge better men going only on what dan rather told you. I decided to skip it and go on to even more egregious examples of your ignorance.

I’ll bet you still believe to this day that tailhooking is as patriotic as your mum’s homemade apple pie.

Indeed, I do. Since you obviously have no idea what it means and are too lazy to google it (lots of that going on around here), tailhooking is how a fixed wing aircraft stoops itself on an aircraft carrier. The aircraft deploys a tail hook, it catches an arrestor wire and that is what stops it because the flight deck is too short for a regular landing that the aircraft would roll out to a stop. All these arrested landings are watched, judged and the scores are posted, regardless of rank for all to see. Something unpatriotic about that? Seeing as it is often done in lousy weather or at night so that the USA can project power all over the globe? Do you know you are an idiot?

Hmm? Did you get busted but not enough to get cashiered in the aftermath and after a few years realized that you’ll never advance and so retired? Or did they have to force you out kicking and screaming? Methinks the latter.

Again, had you not been a lazy idiot you could have looked up the tailhook “scandal” and read that it happened in 1991…Not that I was there, or within 2500 miles of of it, but do you think the USN would have waited so long to get me out if they wanted me out?

A pathetic sockpuppet.

Good work, parrot. I call you pathetic, you rub both IQ points together and come back with imaginative rebuttal of calling me pathetic. If I called you a lasagna you would sit there, drool on yourself and come back accusing me of being a lasagna.
Here, idiot, “sock puppet” still doesn’t work. Your ESL class let you down… along with civics.. and pretty much everything else.
1. sock puppet
An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously.
2. sockpuppet
A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.

I still only have 1 account here.

V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 4:46 AM

Mmmmm. I sure enjoy toying with you and eliciting such gems out of you. it’s really not fair, but like a cat, I’m irresistably drawn towards whacking the blind mole.

Line by line eh? So why skip the line about what tailhookers did?

Because that wasn’t a point, it was drivel about something you have no idea about. You were presuming to judge better men going only on what dan rather told you. I decided to skip it and go on to even more egregious examples of your ignorance.

I’ll bet you still believe to this day that tailhooking is as patriotic as your mum’s homemade apple pie.

Indeed, I do. Since you obviously have no idea what it means and are too lazy to google it (lots of that going on around here), tailhooking is how a fixed wing aircraft stoops itself on an aircraft carrier. [SNIP] Do you know you are an idiot?

Hmm? Did you get busted but not enough to get cashiered in the aftermath and after a few years realized that you’ll never advance and so retired? Or did they have to force you out kicking and screaming? Methinks the latter.

Again, had you not been a lazy idiot you could have looked up the tailhook “scandal” and read that it happened in 1991…Not that I was there, or within 2500 miles of of it, but do you think the USN would have waited so long to get me out if they wanted me out?

A pathetic sockpuppet.

Good work, parrot. I call you pathetic, you rub both IQ points together and come back with imaginative rebuttal of calling me pathetic. If I called you a lasagna you would sit there, drool on yourself and come back accusing me of being a lasagna.
Here, idiot, “sock puppet” still doesn’t work. Your ESL class let you down… along with civics.. and pretty much everything else.
1. sock puppet
An account made on an internet message board, by a person who already has an account, for the purpose of posting more-or-less anonymously.
2. sockpuppet
A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.

V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 4:46 AM

First, you repeatedly claim to have addressed my points (and others) line by line. FALSE, your MO is merely to take a phrase out of context, twist it and project your ignorance of history, constitution et al unto us and then condemn it as betrayal. You’d make a good court inquisitor. When I call you out on your line-by-line claim, you come back with “besides the point”.

Secondly, sure i know what a tailhook is. My first bird, a SLUF (I’ll understand if you have to go look it up), had one. But apparently you’re too dense to understand there’s a second connotation to “tailhook”. To wit:

Lieutenant Gary Mandich, who was one of the many attendees and alleged participants in the lewd activities, told media, “Everyone needs to seriously lighten up. What do they expect? This is Vegas baby! They call this symposium “Tail” hook for a reason!”

Thirdly, I also know the scandal took place in ’91. But the fallout was squarely in the “mid-90s”, as countless articles by Stars & Lies will attest. But, let’s quote someone who really knows:

On October 29, 1991, the Department of the Navy terminated all ties to the Tailhook Association. Ties were not restored until January 19, 1999. The issues were never quite settled, and as late as 2002, the Tailhook chairman spoke of “the alleged misconduct that occurred in 1991″. For several years after Tailhook ’91, promotion board results were delayed while a special review was conducted to ensure that any person with an adverse connection to Tailhook ’91 was not promoted.

But what exactly did I originally write?

Did you get busted but not enough to get cashiered in the aftermath and after a few years realized that you’ll never advance and so retired? Or did they have to force you out kicking and screaming? Methinks the latter.

So you didn’t leave until late 90s, I stand corrected. If flying was my passion but I couldn’t get rank, I’d leave too.

Last but not least, I agree that lasagnas can be idiotic, but they can’t help it because that’s their nature. Unlike sockpupptes… You gave 2 definitions, but as usual with your modus operandi, you leave out the critical. To wit:

3) A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person (your #1 definition). The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

Sooooo… When I and others called you a sockpuppet, what did we associate you with?
a) GOPe (organization – check)
b) McVain (person – check)
c) Meggie mac (person – check)
d) Beaner (person – check)
e) concern-troll from DNC (organization- check)

Since you harp so much on “immigration’, maybe you really are a self-hating immigrant. Oh, by the way, all Americans acan trace their lineage to an immigrant. So when I said we’re all immigrants, the assertion is true, even if you personally was native born. The crack about ESL seems to be another case of projection. For one, I did teach/tutor ESL and can relate to the difficulty students have in English comphrehension. So maybe, when we accuse you of deliberately twisting our words, perhaps we were unduly harsh considering that idioms, allusions, homonyms and other subtle hooks within the language are lost on you.

AH_C on December 19, 2013 at 3:48 PM

First, you repeatedly claim to have addressed my points (and others) line by line. FALSE,

Anyone can see that you are a liar just by tilting their heads up and reading, however since you aren’t going to acknowledge it I won’t bother.
Here’s the point, When you deliberately, knowingly do something to do harm to the country you are a traitor to the country. You have acknowledged that what you have advocated causes harm to the country. That makes you a traitor. The only real difference between you and timothy McViegh is one of degree. Indeed, the idea of building a consevative based country by electing socialists is completely unworkable, ridiculasly circuitous… a mentally masturbatory pipe dream.
You can’t refute any of that, all you can do is try to deflect attention from the fact that you are, again, KNOWINGLY aiding Obama and the socialists destroy the country with word salad that, at best, re-affirms why it’s foolish for anyone to take you seriously.

V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 11:33 PM

The only real difference between you and timothy McViegh is one of degree.
V7_Sport on December 19, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Well, Tim McVeigh did have a point that the Feds overstepped themselves with Ruby Ridge and Waco. But that was a lame excuse for wantonly killing innocent folks. There are ways to deal with breaches of constitution faith without resorting to bombs, but then again, that’s what anarchists do.

AH_C on December 20, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4