Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How Dumbasses Enable The Jackasses.......
#21
Here's another perfect example of how Dumbasses enable Jackasses: McCain raises prospect of military option in Syria. As if we are not squandering enough money in overseas adventures, McDoofus wants to beat the dead horse even more. After all, we are our Brother's Keeper, right?

Here's another option for the Messiah. In order to get reelected, all he has to do is dump Biden and get McDoofus to run with him. There will be enough guaranteed Dumbasses willing to march in lock step behind the Number One Dumbass himself, as Big Government pols, of all stripes, unite together to overwhelm the logical voters.




One other question: you really don't have to admit it, because I know how embarrassing it would be. But answer this: did you actually vote for this Idiot in 2008? Because if you did, you're a Dumbass too!!@##$!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#22
[Image: cb102111dAPR20111021084522.jpg]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#23
Here's a great example of what being a "Dumbass" is all about. This guy, Doug Mataconis, is a genius, living just outside the Beltway in Northern Virginia, and here is what he has to say about GOP strategy for 2012, and how the Tea Party has not been completely all bad. And the fact that he has a picture of the NYT's token Republican, David Brooks, explains everything, to me anyway.

Here is what gets my goat:

Quote:How the GOP reacts to a loss in 2012 would depend, at least in part, on who ends up winning the nomination. If the nominee is Mitt Romney as many expect, including yours truly, then the initial spin from conservatives, the Tea Party movement, and the blogger and talk radio crowd is likely to be that the party lost because the nominee wasn’t conservative enough. This was the same argument that many Republicans made after Bob Dole lost in 1996, and after John McCain lost in 2008. In reality, of course, it’s not at all clear that it was a lack of conservative bona fides that doomed either of these campaigns…

If Romney is the nominee and he loses, it’s likely the reaction will be the same and that, at least, initially we’ll see the activists in the GOP go on another purity quest. On Capitol Hill, this would likely have the impact of making the House GOP even less willing to compromise than it has been since the 2010 elections for fear of facing trouble during the 2014 midterms. The danger this poses for the GOP, of course, is that a re-elected President Obama is likely to have at least some public opinion boost behind him in 2013, as well as the ability to claim a mandate…

What if the nominee isn’t Mitt Romney, but one of the Tea Party favored candidates, the most realistic of those being either Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich?

This may be the best alternative of all for the GOP, because while it’s likely to lead to the same kind of reassessment that a Romney loss would, it be more likely to bring about the kind of changes that would benefit the party in the long run. The Tea Party hasn’t been an entirely bad thing for the GOP. In fact, I’d say that without John McCain’s loss in 2008 and the rise of the Tea Party, we likely would not have seen the GOP take control of Congress in 2010. However, as we learned in 2010 and as we’re learning to some extent during the early month of the 2012 election cycle, the movement has also caused the party to go off on bizarre tangents at times and to take insane stands like appearing to be willing to take the nation to the brink of financial chaos back in August. The “no compromise” position that the Tea Party represents may be good for internal party consumption and it may make the true believers happy, but it’s not good government and it’s probably not a good long term political strategy. A loss in 2012 that gets pinned on the movement would likely re-energize the “establishment” and more traditional conservatives in the party and cause a backlash against some of the more radical elements of the Tea Party. In the long run, this would probably be good for the GOP.

This is Classic Dumbass, at its best. And it clearly shows to everyone exactly why they are really enabling Jackasses,all because it is not acceptable to defeat the opponent, but just get along with them.

And this is a great demonstration of why the Judge calls both parties just different wings of the same Big Government Party.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#24
Here is another classic example of what I mean about how the GOP is so good at shooting itself in the foot, time after time, after time, after time,...........................

Quote:Thomas Sowell: Principles over ‘seizing the center’
By THOMAS SOWELL
2011-11-29 08:07:24

It used to be common for people to urge us to learn "the lessons of history." But history gets much less attention these days and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness.

Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently from others.

Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, "Most political battles are won by seizing the center." Moreover, he added: "Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years."

But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, "seize the center"? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential election victories, "seize the center"?

There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center -- and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though Truman was so unpopular at the outset that the "New Republic" magazine urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something -- and for months he battled for what he stood for.

That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.

It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.

It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.

President Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election -- and lost to an initially almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.

President George H.W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his "Read my lips, no new taxes" speech, turned "kinder and gentler" -- to everyone except the taxpayers -- once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.

More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center -- Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 -- go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of, just three years earlier.

Michael Medved, however, reads history differently.

To him, Barry Goldwater got clobbered in the 1964 elections because of his strong conservatism. But did his opponent, Lyndon Johnson, seize the center? Johnson was at least as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right. And Goldwater scared the daylights out of people with the way he expressed himself, especially on foreign policy, where he came across as reckless.

On a personal note, I wrote a two-line verse that year, titled "The Goldwater Administration:"

Fifteen minutes of laissez-faire,

While the Russian missiles are in the air.

Senator Goldwater was not crazy enough to start a nuclear war. But the way he talked sometimes made it seem as if he were. Ronald Reagan would later be elected and re-elected taking positions essentially the same as those on which Barry Goldwater lost big time. Reagan was simply a lot better at articulating his beliefs.

Michael Medved uses the 2008 defeat of Tea Party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center. But these were candidates whose political ineptness was the problem, not conservatism.

Candidates should certainly reach out to a broad electorate. But the question is whether they reach out by promoting their own principles to others or by trying to be all things to all people.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#25
Neal Boortz does a great job of calling the hapless GOP on the carpet: Idiotic, mindless, stupid Republicans.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#26
This is just one more example of how Dumbasses encourage/enable Jackasses resort to lies, and get away with it: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...urate.html If any Dumbass were to make such outrageous claims, the Jackasses would be screaming bloody hell, even in their sleep.

Yet, strangely the GOP leadership remains silent to it all. If one were to believe the Bamster one would logically conclude his political opponents were either suicidal, or had special immunities the rest of the citizenry lack. And silence is exactly what Obama's predecessor used when he was subject to withering lies and distortions.

He did nothing in order to defend himself. Yet he did increase the scope of the State, and spend beyond his means, more than anyone before him. And once a red light turns green, Jackasses do what Jackasses do best.

And Bill/Ron honestly believe I will be guilty if I refuse to vote Dumbass this November? As Stossell would say, "Give Me A Break."
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#27
Yes, you will be guilty of putting Obama in office again and seeing the demise of our country. It is easy to look for and hand-pick those who agree with a wrong idea, but harder to admit the fallacy inherent in one's actions.

It is too important an issue to allow the country to implode.

History is full of facts, but how a person interprets them makes all the difference. One thing that is indisputable, is that incumbents have created a mechanism that so favors them, that you must play by their rules to defeat them. Thinking you can boycott the system to shun them is very Amish - but not likely. Yes, you can feel smug in being internally consistent, but that is the worst kind of navel-gazing.

We have a call to action that is resisted by a purposeful strategy by the other side that consists primarily of dividing to conquer. Not only do you refuse to do the hard work of sausage-making to get at the problem, you are happy to keep your hands clean, while the rest of us are bloody up to the elbows. Do what you will, but stop acting ascendant, because you are following a game-plan that helps the other side.

Yes, the GOP leadership does not do everything we want them to do. Some things are moot - some things are downright wrong. The plan is to force them to get it right. Fleeing a sinking ship does not fix things, when your island of rescue is a desert island that will kill you anyway.
Reply
#28
(04-04-2012, 01:49 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Yes, you will be guilty of putting Obama in office again and seeing the demise of our country. It is easy to look for and hand-pick those who agree with a wrong idea, but harder to admit the fallacy inherent in one's actions.

It is too important an issue to allow the country to implode.

History is full of facts, but how a person interprets them makes all the difference. One thing that is indisputable, is that incumbents have created a mechanism that so favors them, that you must play by their rules to defeat them. Thinking you can boycott the system to shun them is very Amish - but not likely. Yes, you can feel smug in being internally consistent, but that is the worst kind of navel-gazing.

We have a call to action that is resisted by a purposeful strategy by the other side that consists primarily of dividing to conquer. Not only do you refuse to do the hard work of sausage-making to get at the problem, you are happy to keep your hands clean, while the rest of us are bloody up to the elbows. Do what you will, but stop acting ascendant, because you are following a game-plan that helps the other side.

Yes, the GOP leadership does not do everything we want them to do. Some things are moot - some things are downright wrong. The plan is to force them to get it right. Fleeing a sinking ship does not fix things, when your island of rescue is a desert island that will kill you anyway.

The same thing as the one used in suspense movies, where the Good Guy is chasing the Bad Guy, and as he closes in, the Bad Guy grabs an innocent child/woman, places a gun to his/her head and blurts out, "Stay back or I will shoot this innocent person, and if I do, it will be your fault."

Great logic Bill. Too bad I don't buy it. If you want me to vote for someone I can hang my ideological hat on, then help get that sorry, worthless party straightened out first.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#29
Good analogy - but off. The good guy still does what he must to save the victim - not feel smug that he put down his gun and walked away - leaving the victim in the clutches of the bad guy.

If it was me, I'd think about shooting through the victim to rob the perp of his shield and disarm him. The trick is to shoot the victim in a non-life threatening place that will impact the bad guy. This is so prevalent a strategy, that computer gaming awards points for doing so - but subtracts points for shooting the victim without hitting the bad guy.

Of course we work to straighten-out the party - but not first, before you are willing to participate. We do it AS we are participating. That increases our leverage and helps put our own agents in place of the bad.

John, you cannot do this without getting your hands dirty. The dwellers in high places have created a structure that requires massive work before a small change is made. In Indiana, the Democrats had a system that required a lot of grunt work to get petitions to file for candidates. They took the easy path and felt since they were in power they could take a short cut and use voter fraud to get their candidate into office. They were in power - but the law should have prevented what they did, anyway. We need the boots on the ground to engage in these small battles before the war is won by default.
Reply
#30
Bill, just yesterday, you were adamant in that everyone should come up with the very best password possible, and not take shortcuts. You remember that, do you not?

Well, if you are going to use the same logic here, as there, you will know why I will not wallow in the mud with pigs, even if they are friendlier than the other ones. I demand far better than a clear case of Jackass-Lite.

If I want Jackass in my life, I'll just vote for the Real Deal. I want a roll-back in Big Government, not a "We'll just get you there a little slower." And anyone, who believes as I do, yet is willing to lie in the gutter just to go along, is also guilty in my book. That is how they keep bringing back the same old shit, time after time.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#31
Again, you over-simplified the problem to make an inapt analogy. The password is safe when it is an individual one that is hard to guess, because it can be stolen out of the password database at the other end. No matter what password you pick, it can't be used unless the place you are using it already has it. If you use the same password for multiple uses, and it is stolen one time, it can be used everywhere you used it.

You cannot avoid the mud, if that is where the pigs in power reside. The sty will be yucky - but you can't control the porkers from the clean side of the farm. It makes zero sense to say you may as well vote for Obama rather than fight for your issues where you can. Everyone admits it is not easy, but so what? Life is not fair and it has never been easy. Your shortcut to happiness just makes things worse. It is foolish to pretend that everyone who is not Ron Paul or Bob Barr is your enemy. If you sat down with Mitt Romney, or Santorum, or Gingrich, do you believe you could convince them to look at issues in the way you see them? I do. But it depends on how well you can defend your arguments and positively influence individuals with a boatload of incorrect preconceived notions. Not being willing to try says more about you than the people you refuse to work with.
Reply
#32
And from the great state of Oklahoma, comes this example of the fight between Big Government Dumbasses and those trying to practice what they preach. Daniel MItchell, another evil Libertarian, has this on the situation: Reformers vs the GOP Establishment: The Battle to Eliminate the Income Tax.

Kris, are you aware of this fight in your state? And if so, are you surprised?

Quote:Putting Republicans in charge is never a guarantee of good public policy. It was during the Bush years, for instance, that the nation was saddled with a prescription drug entitlement. The GOPers in the White House and on Capitol Hill also recklessly increased the burden of government spending. And they expanded the “affordable lending requirements” on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, thus helping to create the housing crisis.

More recently, a majority of Republicans in the House and Senate voted to expand corporate welfare by increasing the authority of the corrupt Export-Import Bank. And that’s after voting last year to increase housing subsidies!

But this doesn’t mean all Republicans are bad. Ronald Reagan unambiguously was a net plus for freedom, and congressional Republicans mostly tried to do the right thing in the mid-1990s.

The main thing to understand is that there is an ongoing fight inside the Republican Party between those who want to do the right thing and those who see politics as a means of accumulating and exercising power.

The latest example of this battle is taking place in Oklahoma, where the Governor has proposed to eliminate the state income tax and her main opponents are members of the corrupt GOP establishment.

The Wall Street Journal has editorialized on the issue, and makes all the correct points.

Quote:Do Republicans stand for economic growth and tax reform, or not? That question is on the table in Oklahoma, where GOP Governor Mary Fallin has a plan to cut and eventually eliminate the income tax. Her main opposition: fellow Republicans in the state Senate. …Ms. Fallin points to decades of evidence that America’s nine no-income tax states have had superior population, income and job growth. The case for a Sooner State tax cut has taken on new urgency because neighboring Texas has no income tax and Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska are working toward or have already enacted rate cuts this year. …A cavalcade of lobbyists, including local Chambers of Commerce, teachers unions and welfare groups are fighting the tax cut. The Tulsa and Oklahoma City Chambers are pleading for corporate welfare that benefits politically connected large corporations, rather than rate cuts for all businesses.

I’m no longer surprised when I read about the Chamber of Commerce supporting bad policy. Big business rarely is a friend of freedom.

But I am very disappointed to read that economists at some of the state universities have climbed into bed with the political elite.

Quote:Last week economists on the public payroll from the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State came out against the tax cut. Cynthia Rogers of OU said that the evidence on whether income-tax cuts help the economy is “inconclusive.” Maybe in the faculty lounge. But Oklahomans can see the jobs bonanza across the border in Texas, which pays its bills with a sales tax. …Meanwhile, states with some of the highest income-tax rates—California, Maryland and Illinois—have had the toughest time keeping out of the red. New Hampshire, Tennessee, Florida and others that don’t levy an income tax manage to balance their budget nearly every year.

The WSJ makes a very good point about real-world evidence. Texas and California are both role models, and they demonstrate that states with no income taxes kick the you-know-what of states with class-warfare fiscal systems.

Unfortunately, some Oklahoma Republicans care more about political power than the well-being of the people.

And some here cannot understand why I utterly despise the GOP DC leadership and their Big Government cronies? Or why Ron Paul is trying to work from the bottom up and change the Statist Leadership.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#33
Here is just one more reason why I am totally vindicated in not voting for that Idiot McCain. Telling us all that his favorite president was Teddy Roosevelt was not a fluke.

Here we are in the middle of a total fiscal, and monetary, meltdown. Yet this idiot(and I'm being charitable), along with his good buddy Harry Reid, want to make government even larger, in hopes of making a sleezy profession appear to be less sleezy.

Quote:Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who boxed while at the U.S. Naval Academy, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a former middleweight boxer, are pushing the measure establishing the U.S. Boxing Commission, an entity that would carry out federal boxing law, work with the industry and local commissions and license boxers, promoters, managers and sanctioning organizations.


Speaking on the Senate floor, McCain evoked the words of former sportswriter Jimmy Cannon, who called boxing the "red light district of sports." He said the recent dispute stemming from the welterweight bout between Bradley and Pacquiao "is the latest example of the legitimate distrust boxing fans have for the integrity of the sport."

Clearly McDoofus is not playing with a 'full deck' and now I know better as to why. He used to be a boxer, Before getting his head constantly bashed in at the Hanoi Hilton.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#34
You seem to be way overreacting, John L. I see nothing wrong with a senator seeking to reform the sport of boxing. It's obviously too late for wrestling. But regulation of any sport is not necessarily wrong. You are hitting the panic button over nothing of consequence! And I still say you were unwise to vote for anyone other than McCain in 2008. People like you are entirely responsible for electing Obama. It is your fault we have an incompetent and a tyrant in the presidency. Making up silly things to criticize McCain for does not excuse you in the slightest for your poor judgment on this matter. Had McCain been elected in 2008, then Sarah Palin would have been the Republican nominee for president in 2016, and she is much more in line with your political ideals. You prevented that from happening.
Reply
#35
Of course you don't see anything wrong with all this constantly expanding government,....and expanding expenses. You're a Big Government person Ron. You Adore Big Government, especially if it is going to enforce morals,...........right?

But tell me Ron, just how big is too big for you? When does Enough really mean Enough? And when, and I say when, we are forced to cut spending and downsizing the scope/cost of your favorite entity, which part will you agree to axe first?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#36
Hmmm... Constantly expanding government? What did Ron just say to you? McCain would not have expanded government the way Obama has. McCain is an idiot as far as I am concerned - but not in the same class with an avowed socialist who wants to turn the U.S. into a non-Constitutional European feudal state with Sharia Law. And there is certainly nothing wrong with having Palin ready to take the reins to correct anything that McCain allowed through. Remember - with Obama came the proverbial coat tails and the votes in the Senate and House to carry out his agenda, as well as the damage to the Supreme Court.

You do understand that your votes for Obama is what is constantly expanding government and expanding expenses. Don't blame McCain for that. It is worse than Obama still blaming Bush for what he does. McCain may have been bad. He may not - but we'll never know, because we are stuck with Obama, and Axelrod, Jarrett, David Plouffe, Clinton, Geithner, Panetta, Holder, Salazar, Vilsack, Brison, Solis, Sebelius, Donovan, LaHood, Steven Chu, Donovan, Shinseki, Napolitano, Carol Browner, Van Jones, and all the other extremists... Not to mention Kagan and Sotomayor who will sit for about thirty years in the Supreme Court.
Reply
#37
I really like your analogy Bill. Its like the woman who thinks her husband should not be held to account because instead of beating her and screwing around with others, he doesn't beat her, as the neighbor's husband does. Great analogy, don't you think?

It also shows what you are willing to tolerate with your party. Do you apply this to your own life?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#38
John L, it is not an expansion of government for the government to exercise a power it already has, to regulate professional sports.

My definition of "big government" must be very different from yours. It does not require a big government to perform what it is supposed to do. You seem to regard big government as anything government may do that might impinge upon your freedom to do whatever you want to do. There are many things most people want to do that are positive and beneficial and productive, and should be encouraged. There are some things that some people want to do that must be curbed for the good of everyone else, because some people want to do things that are evil and harmful and predatory. It is government that protects and maintains civilization by keeping the barbarians at bay. Our responsibility is to maintain constant vigilance against the attempts by barbarians to take over government. If the barbarians ever take over completely, we will have true lawless anarchy--and I think if that happens you will find that it is not quite in keeping with the libertarian ideals you espouse.
Reply
#39
Where does the Constitution give the Feds power over private industry, such as professional sports? And if there is not already some agency, what makes you think another cash cow is going to help with our problems?

And you still haven't answered my question: But tell me Ron, just how big is too big for you? When does Enough really mean Enough? And when, and I say when, we are forced to cut spending and downsizing the scope/cost of your favorite entity, which part will you agree to axe first?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#40
John, I did answer your question. I differ with your premise that government doing anything regulatory is necessarily too much. Government has been imposing restrictions on corporations for generations. Regulation of interstate commerce is in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The Taft-Hartley Act has been judged Consititutional. Or would you rather we still had price-fixing monopolies and unregulated food producers and child labor and Coolie workers?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Jackasses Being Jackasses" Thread John L 360 145,340 06-14-2019, 10:28 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)