ChrisWeigant.com

Enjoying The Kabuki?

[ Posted Wednesday, December 19th, 2012 – 16:37 PST ]

I realize that watching the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington has been likened to stylized Kabuki theater more than once by pundits far and wide, but I'm going to push this metaphor for all it is worth today. You might even say I'm going to push it right over a cliff, but that would be a horrendous metaphor mixture indeed.

We, the audience, sit here watching the last bits of Act III of The Great Fiscal Cliff Tragicomedy. We'll start with a quick recap of the action you may have missed (because you were standing in line at the bar, or perhaps parking your car).

In Act I, or "The Laughably Short Memory of the Media," the Media Chorus announces loudly and with great alarum that the nation is on the very brink of the Fiscal Cliff. Garments are rent, on air, and bewailings abound. Ignored in all of this thunderous noise is the fact that the Media Chorus has been completely and utterly ignoring this issue all year long during the presidential campaign. Not one peep was heard before Election Day about Fiscal Cliffery, but now it is the most important and dire issue the universe has ever thrown at our fair country. What will happen to our upstanding citizens? Will we go "over the cliff" or not? Will a global economic depression begin one minute after midnight on New Year's? One question, in the midst of all the apocalyptic rhetoric, is never asked: If this is such a honking big deal, then why did the media not discuss it once during the election?

Act II is titled "Laughable Offers," and opens with the White House putting their plan on the table. The GOP laughs long and hard at it. They scoff, they sneer, they deride, and they ridicule the president's offer. When this aria is complete, the Media Chorus wakes up from its long winter's nap and points out that the GOP has no offer of their own on the table. The Emperor of the GOP realizes he is stark naked, and hastily puts together the Republican laughable offer. The White House ridicules, derides, sneers, and scoffs, on cue. Both the Emperor and the President go off in a theatrical huff, and begin preaching to their own choirs, the Left Base and the Right Base. Act II ends in sound and fury, signifying (as the Bard pointed out) absolutely nothing.

Act III, or "Trial Balloons and Flagpoles," is currently on the stage. It begins with Unnamed Administration Source walking to stage left, where there is a flagpole. This aide (it is impossible even to tell the gender of this dark character) begins running colorful banners up and down the flagpole. The Left Base watches, and either salutes or loudly grimaces when each flag is raised. The Media Chorus takes notes.

While all this is going on, over on stage right, Unattributed Republican Source walks to a pile of deflated balloons and a noisy machine which manufactures hot air. He proceeds to inflate balloons one by one, and float them above the Right Base audience. The Right Base shoots most of these trial balloons down immediately, using the weapons of their choice. The Media Chorus nods sagely, observing (and, at times, participating, in what can only be called a foxy manner).

The action taking place right now onstage is twofold. On stage left, Unnamed Administration Source runs up a flag labeled "CPI Unchained," to howls of disapproval from the Left Base. A second flag is quickly run up, bordered all around by a fat red line and labeled "Extend Unemployment," which quiets down the Left Base considerably.

Over on stage right, the action centers on Unattributed Republican Source inflating a balloon labeled "Plan B" (Republicans have no sense of irony, as evidenced by naming their current plan after a medical pill they fought like wolverines against). Confused activity is seen within the Right Base, as Lord Norquist himself stands up and applauds the Plan B balloon, stating: "Politicians don't make a pledge to me, of course, but to their constituents -- but I am still the one who decides who has kept such pledges and who has not, since I am, forsooth, the Lord of the Anti-Taxers. I deem yon Plan B sufficiently tax-cuttey, even though it dost indeed raise taxes. Let no man disagree with my Lordly decree." The Right Base nods in unison, even though this makes no sense whatsoever. The Left Base erupts in laughter, unable to even point out how ludicrous Sir Grover sounds, as they merrily roll about the floor.

The Media Chorus completely ignores the fact that Plan B is actually a Democratic plan from a previous Kabuki performance entitled "Republicans Will Never Raise Taxes No Matter Who Is Targeted." They also ignore the fact that this is the first time in 22 years that Republicans have come out in favor of higher tax rates, and they also completely miss the conclusion that the Republicans are caving much faster than anyone could ever have imagined a short time ago.

We are almost at the end of Act III, as the calendar pages fly off faster and faster. Act III will conclude with Christmas morphing into A Very Unmerry Cliffmas for one and all on Capitol Hill.

Act IV will be the most emotional and hysterical, of course, as evidenced by the title: "The Deal Falls Apart." This is the stage in these traditional Kabuki plays where a loud explosion is mimicked center-stage, and everything and everyone collapses for a short time. Both the Republican Emperor and the President will sadly make their case to the Media Chorus of how wondrous their Grand Bargain could have been. After which, both will retreat to their corners once again and don holy robes as they preach to their own choirs about how hard they fought for the best possible deal, only to be outdone by the dastardly machinations of The Other Side. The bases cheer loudly. On center stage, several knife-fights are staged for the enjoyment of the Media Chorus, in the traditional "Blame Game" portion of the program. Blame is flung about with abandon, muddying all it touches. The Media Chorus lays side bets on who will win the Blame Game, and then they use the money collected to pay off the Referee, who turns out to be a member of the Media Chorus from way back. Lamentations are heard across the stage, and there is much gnashing of teeth, as the curtain falls.

Act V opens on a cold and frozen plateau, as expected from the title: "Midnight Midwinter." Deserted by the Left Base and Right Base, and hounded by the Media Chorus, the Emperor and the President have retreated to a small shack in the woods. With only the bare essentials to sustain them (prepared by the White House Chef, who remains in attendance), the two create a Final Deal, with hammers. Stray scraps of legislation and proposals are somehow melded together using old chewing gum, duct tape, bailing wire, and the occasional Band-Aid. This is an ugly, ugly deal, folks. In fact, its entry fee for the Grand Bargain Beauty Pageant is returned to it with a note of sorrow.

The Emperor and the President slink back into Washington in the dead of night, and force Congress (at the darkest hour) to pass their hobbled-together compromise deal. All join hands and simultaneously kick a huge can labeled "Everything Else" down the road. Temporary fixes abound, and short-term avoidance of calamity becomes the only focusing factor. Congress attempts to fade back to their home districts for the last of their 112 vacation periods for the year.

The Left Base and the Right Base wake up in the morning, come tippy-toeing down the stairs, rubbing their eyes... only to see the ugly, ugly Final Deal sitting unadorned on the carpet. In an astounding display of unity, Left and Right also join hands, as they kick the Holy Hell out of the Final Plan, and stomp the tiny, tiny pieces into the carpet with enthusiasm. Fade to black. Curtain.

Which only signals the Kabuki writers to begin cranking out another of these plays, as a sequel labeled either (take your pick) "Obama's Second Honeymoon: The Public Approves Of The Deal," or, perhaps, "Debt Ceiling Scrape, or Fiscal Cliff Part Two."

I realize that I am making light of some very serious issues here, but in Washington, such Kabuki theater is really the only entertainment available, so you use the tools provided (so to speak).

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

140 Comments on “Enjoying The Kabuki?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Well, when you put like that, even I must succumb to calling it all the Kubuki.

    I'll tell you what, though ... if the president succumbs to the $1,000,000 cut off point after having caved in to the $400,000 point, then he's as bad as the Republicans. (Are you listening, Michale!?)

  2. [2] 
    Americulchie wrote:

    Obviously the Speaker and his crew are stuck in a cone of silence,ala Agent 86 and The Chief.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Nah, I don't think so. I could see somewhere in the middle though.

    My guess at this point -- he'll raise the rate to something intermediary (like 37%) for those up to $400K (or $500K or whatever), and then raise it to the full 39.6% above that, creating a new upper tax bracket.

    Americulchie -

    Hah! It's "the old don't comment to draw out more comments trick" as Max would say...

    :-)

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll tell you what, though ... if the president succumbs to the $1,000,000 cut off point after having caved in to the $400,000 point, then he's as bad as the Republicans. (Are you listening, Michale!?)

    I am indeed!! I am going to hold you to that! :D

    Although, I have to point out that even David agreed with me that the Million Dollar mark is a LOT better of a cut-off than the 250K mark...

    There are PLENTY of middle class Americans at the 250K mark who will be hit REALLY hard by a huge increase in taxes..

    Hah! It's "the old don't comment to draw out more comments trick" as Max would say...

    I just LOVE to see Movie/TV references! :D

    It makes me feel so appreciated.. hehehehehehehehe

    Michale
    0471

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although, I have to point out that even David agreed with me that the Million Dollar mark is a LOT better of a cut-off than the 250K mark...

    I mean, after all.. Aren't Democrats out to stick it to MILLIONaires and not TwoFiftyaires???

    Michale
    0474

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Obama's going to VETO the plan that will keep taxes low for a good portion of the middle class..

    Just remember... One reaps what one sows...

    Michale
    0475

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The funny thing about this, the HILARIOUS thing about this is that Obama and Democrats are castigating THEIR OWN PLAN!!!

    Boehner's "Plan B" is nearly the EXACT same plan put forth by Dem Minority "Leader" Pelosi!!!

    Republicans so near capitulation and agree to the Democrats OWN plan and Democrats OPPOSE it!!!

    Ya'all went giddy when McConnell filibustered his own bill...

    What say you about Democrats opposing their own plan!??? :D

    Michale
    0478

  8. [8] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Republicans have no sense of irony, as evidenced by naming their current plan after a medical pill they fought like wolverines against

    I was thinking the same thing, Chris. Plan B is a terrible name. What's going on in their marketing machine?

    It'll be interesting to see if Boehner can get enough support for anything. His last hurrah?

    I know most conservatives like him about as much as Romney. Should be interesting.

    -David

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Due to the end of the world, I am going to try to hit the 500 mark today.. :D

    Michale
    0479

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans have no sense of irony, as evidenced by naming their current plan after a medical pill they fought like wolverines against

    No one ever said that Republicans were big on imagination.. :D

    Michale
    0480

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    What say you about Democrats opposing their own plan!??? :D

    Wait for it.... Wait for it...

    "That's different."

    :D

    Michale
    0481

  12. [12] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This is a pretty good graph I saw to compare the various offers and how each party has compromised from their starting positions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/fiscaloffers_big.jpg

    Personally I think Obama has compromised waaaaay too much. Not exactly a huge shock. It seems that the temporary 'tough' negotiating Obama was just a phase. I wouldn't be surprised if taxes end up at $1m but I think $500k is more likely. From my point of view, where I thought $250k was laughably high if you actually wanted to solved your deficit problem, either $500k or $1m would be hilariously high.

    And of course both parties are preaching about future cuts to Medicare/Social Security/Medicaid whilst totally ignoring the fact that THEY HAVE A LARGE DEFICIT JUST NOW THAT THESE FUTURE ISSUES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING. Sigh.

    I'm trying to find something positive. Uhm. At least Obama threw a measly $100b or so of military discretionary cuts into his latest offer. That's better than nothing I guess (he'll probably compromise this down to $0 though)...

    One thing is certain: whatever 'Grand Bargain' comes out of this will not solve your deficit problem. Good luck with your years of large deficits to come. Make sure and tell your grand-kids that they'll be paying for your generation to have nice tax cuts and an overinflated military. You can show them photos of all the cool things you bought that they now have to pay back and the countries you destroyed with their money - it will be a lovely family moment.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Make sure and tell your grand-kids that they'll be paying for your generation to have nice tax cuts and an overinflated military.

    I seem to recall we kicked the Brit's ass a few hundred years ago.. :D

    Yea, I know, I know.. I just couldn't resist.. :D

    But a large military is the price one pays for keeping a seat at the table of every country that needs our help...

    Which is a VERY long list...

    "Hay Goose, whose ass to you kiss to get here!?"
    "The list is long, but distinguish."
    "Yea, so'se my johnson."

    -TOP GUN

    :D

    And of course both parties are preaching about future cuts to Medicare/Social Security/Medicaid whilst totally ignoring the fact that THEY HAVE A LARGE DEFICIT JUST NOW THAT THESE FUTURE ISSUES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATING. Sigh.

    Losing Billions on the Auto Bailout won't help much either...

    Michale
    0482

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    In other news, Q3 GDP growth revised up from 2.7% to 3.1%. Not a peep out of Fox who would've been going MENTAL about how Obama had rigged the figures for the election if this was revised down...

  15. [15] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Losing Billions on the Auto Bailout won't help much either...

    Not really. One year's worth taxes from the workers and Corporate profits from the industry easily eclipse the loss on the shares the Government is about to take - never mind the many more years of taxes they are about to continue to profit from in the years to come...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Due to the end of the world, I am going to try to hit the 500 mark today.. :D

    "What if there is no tomorrow!!?? There wasn't one today!!??? Hello!?"
    -Bill Murray, GroundHog Day

    :D

    Michale
    0483

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, just one more. Promise...

    "See ya tomorrow!! MAYBE!!!"
    -Bill Murray, GroundHog Day

    :D

    Michale
    0484

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Losing Billions on the Auto Bailout won't help much either...

    Not really.

    Iddn't it funny...

    When DEMOCRATS lose billions of dollars on a bad bet, it's no biggie...

    But money going to our military to keep them safe and effective???

    That's sacrilege!!!

    Michale
    0485

  19. [19] 
    michty6 wrote:

    But money going to our military to keep them safe and effective???

    Not really. I think an effective military is necessary; I think an over-bloated over-the-top military is a waste of money.

    The UK spends about 2.6% of it's GDP on the military. I (and most analysts) consider this quite high - we have probably a larger than necessary military for a country our size... The US spends DOUBLE this as a percentage of GDP. If you matched UK spending as a % of GDP (which most analysts consider quite high) your $1t deficits of the last 4 years would be $650b deficits. Quite a chunk AND you'd still have the largest military spending in the world by a mile...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quite a chunk AND you'd still have the largest military spending in the world by a mile...

    You equate "large" with effective.. You are in error...

    Is the bloat and waste in the military?? Of course. It's a government agency after all..

    However EVERY government agency has bloat and waste..

    Surely it makes sense to hit THOSE organizations first before hitting the military...

    Using the previous Atmospheric Dome analogy, does it make sense to try and save money from the Atmospheric Dome Department first and leave the Lets Pay People NOT To Work Department for later???

    Michale
    0486

  21. [21] 
    michty6 wrote:

    However EVERY government agency has bloat and waste..

    Surely it makes sense to hit THOSE organizations first before hitting the military...

    Not really for this to be true the other agencies would have had to have 'bloated' at unprecedented rates over the last 10 years. They haven't. The DOD is the Government agency that has bloated by the largest amount over the last 10 years. Hence why it is where any spending cuts should begin...

    So yes you cut the Government agencies that have BLOATED and grown OUT OF PROPORTION to others first (i.e. contributed more to the deficit than others). That is very logical and rational.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    So yes you cut the Government agencies that have BLOATED and grown OUT OF PROPORTION to others first (i.e. contributed more to the deficit than others). That is very logical and rational

    Up until the point you realize that, w/o an effective military there would be no U.S. Of A..

    Why are you trying to destroy my country, Michty?? :D

    Michale
    0487

  23. [23] 
    akadjian wrote:
  24. [24] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Why are you trying to destroy my country, Michty?? :D

    Oh don't you know? I'm not really from Scotland, that was just my cover. I'm a Muslim terrorist hell bent on destroying your nation (just like Obama) ;)

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    HA!!!!!

    I knew it!!!! :D

    Michale
    0488

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/274009-reid-rules-out-senate-vote-on-boehners-plan-b

    I guess Reid would rather go home for Xmas rather than stop the largest tax hike in American history..

    No compromise..

    SOMEONE should have seen this coming..

    Oh wait..

    Someone did... :D

    Michale
    0489

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol nice try. I don't think you (or Boehner) understands how 'negotiations' work. Passing your OWN PLAN with no compromise through the one Chamber you control (and being SHOCKED when the other Chamber says no) in the middle of negotiations is pretty lolololol

  28. [28] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It's about as dumb as making a mock bill called "Obamaz Budgetz' and then trying to 'pass' it and grab headlines with it gets no votes...

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'm a Muslim terrorist hell bent on destroying your nation (just like Obama) ;)

    Michty, the Akadjians also go way back in Muslimia. Back to the prophet Jihad who first proposed hating "American freedoms" in 1215. In fact, my last name means "Destroy America before there is an America!" in Arabic.

    Amazing, eh?

    -David

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Passing your OWN PLAN with no compromise through the one Chamber you control (and being SHOCKED when the other Chamber says no) in the middle of negotiations is pretty lolololol

    As usual, you're wrong..

    This wasn't BOEHNER'S plan...

    It was PELOSI'S PLAN!!!!

    "Destroy America before there is an America!"

    Oooooooo Time Travel!!!!

    Don't get me started!!!! :D

    Michale
    0490

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!!

    World is going to end at 0500 PDT tomorrow!!!

    I need 10 more posts!!!

    Well, 9 now... :D

    Michale
    0491

  32. [32] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This wasn't BOEHNER'S plan...

    It was PELOSI'S PLAN!!!!
    Really? So Obama is negotiating with Pelosi just now? And Pelosi put forward this deal as part of the negotiations? Wow. That is news to me. Did this come from Fox by any chance?

    Oooooooo Time Travel!!
    Exactly! Not only is the US deficit Obama's fault, the war in Iraq is too because he's so evil...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG7uV2L3DqA

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is news to me.

    Of course, it's news to you... You don't listen to anything outside of the Liberal Hysterico-Blogosphere..

    Boehner's "Plan B" plan was submitted by Pelosi several months ago..

    Boehner adopted it near verbatim and laughed his ass off as Democrats fell all over themselves denigrating the plan...

    I can picture it now..

    " That plan is horrible!!! That plan stinks!! That.... Whaa??? It's OUR plan!!!?????"
    -Democrats

    Typical of Democrats.. They don't know their asses from a hole in the ground... :D

    Michale
    0492

  34. [34] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol you really are stuck in right-wing media world. Boehner's 'Plan B' is no more 'Pelosi's plan' than the Republican budget that they called 'Obama's budget' was actually Obama's budget.

    Let's see how about a bill that increases taxes on those earning >$1m and has $10000000 trillion in cuts to the poor. We'll call it 'Pelosi's bill' lololololol.

    I guess it doesn't surprise me that they continue to play these games in the middle of negotiations because people are so ignorant and gullible they buy into them. Cough.

    It's just a shame that they would rather put forward these pointless bills, that represent their own current positions, than actually sit around the table and negotiate a REAL proper deal with bipartisan support...

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [33] -

    You're missing a very big point. Dems aren't interested in the plan now (Chuck Schumer originally came up with it, I believe), because that was a year and a half ago, and now Democrats know they can get an even better deal. That's a position of strength.

    "You're willing to take that offer we made 18 months ago? Well, sorry, we've had an election since then, this is what's on the table now..."

    The GOP filibustered a bill they had introduced THAT MORNING.

    That's the difference, and it's a big one. Dems are laughing at "Plan B" because they know the deal they're going to get will be better. Plain and simple. Elections matter.

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-rejects-boehner-plan-b-that-even-pelosi-backed/article/2516272?custom_click=rss#.UNColneCpos

    Democrats won't compromise with Republicans, even if it's their OWN plan!!

    What did I say back when ya'all were bemoaning that Republicans never compromise..

    I said Democrats will turn around and do the same thing..

    And HERE we are!!! :D

    It's tough being accurate so often... :D

    Michale
    0493

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Au contraire, mon frair.. It was this year..

    "In our caucus, there is a school of thought that says let’s get rid of all the tax cuts. “I say, let’s begin by getting rid of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars a year. I’m not even saying $250,000. The president’s saying $250,000. A million and above. Who can argue with that?"
    -Nancy Pelosi, April 2012

    Apparently, Obama can argue with that..

    Once again, Democrats words comes back to haunt them.. :D

    That's the difference, and it's a big one. Dems are laughing at "Plan B" because they know the deal they're going to get will be better. Plain and simple. Elections matter.

    Yea??? Apparently, not in 2010.. :D

    Michale
    0494

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's the difference, and it's a big one. Dems are laughing at "Plan B" because they know the deal they're going to get will be better.

    Better???

    Pushing this country into a recession and invoking the largest tax hike in history is "better"???

    Michale
    0495

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    To be accurate, it's not the Pelosi Plan... It's not even the Boehner Plan..

    It's the David/Michale@CW.COM plan!!! :D

    Michale
    0496

  40. [40] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hmmm maybe I'm being too harsh on Boehner. Maybe he is having this vote with the expectation that it doesn't pass so he can basically say to Obama 'Do you see what I'm dealing with here?? My party really is this crazy...'

    I doubt it won't pass though. Once it has been laden with trillions of dollars of cuts to the poor, Republican's will be salivating at it... Nothing gets Republican on board like the idea of fucking over the poor.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, at least ONE fact has been established beyond ALL doubt.

    Democrats can be as non-compromising and as obstructionist as Republicans...

    Michale
    0497

  42. [42] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lolol I can only imagine your reaction on here if in the middle of negotiations, Democrats said 'screw you guys we're putting our bill for tax cuts on those earning <$250k to a vote in the Senate and cutting off negotiations'. I don't think you understand what 'compromise' or 'negotiate' means. Clue: It doesn't mean 'take your current position to a vote in the middle of negotiations in the chamber you control - even when the other party has indicated they will not vote on it'...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    I doubt it won't pass though. Once it has been laden with trillions of dollars of cuts to the poor, Republican's will be salivating at it... Nothing gets Republican on board like the idea of fucking over the poor.

    Naaw, yer not bigoted...

    Not at all.... :^/

    Michale
    0498

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    John Boehner ... captain of a sinking ship :)

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/20/cnn-poll-are-gop-policies-too-extreme/

    Keep up the good work, John!

    -David

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:
  46. [46] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I have a deficit reduction proposal. It's called the 'Forcing Politicians (Cough: Republican Politicians) To Actually Do Work' Act.

    What it stipulates is that if a piece of legislation is passed in either the Senate or House that the leader or the other Chamber has indicated won't even be allowed to come to the floor (or the President has indicated he will veto it), every single person who voted in favour of the Bill loses 5% of their taxpayer paid salary immediately.

    And if you pass 35 bills in this manner, for example passing 35 bills in the House to over turn Obamacare, you will in fact have to PAY money (you lose all your salary plus are required to pay 75% of your salary's worth on top).

    With the number of complete-waste-of-time-nonsense-bills passed by Republicans in the last 4 years, I'm pretty sure that this measure alone will resolve your deficit :)

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's take stock..

    Tax Hikes on millionaires..

    NO Spending Cuts..

    Democrats say no...

    And REPUBLICANS aren't compromising!!???

    Are you fraking KIDDING ME!!????

    Michale
    0499

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have a deficit reduction proposal. It's called the 'Forcing Politicians (Cough: Republican Politicians) To Actually Do Work' Act.

    I am constrained to point out that, here in Weigantia, it's universally accepted that neither Republicans NOR Democrats in Congress have a problem with evading work...

    Your bias is showing... AGAIN..

    On another note, I read somewhere that, according to a Mayan Shaaman, the Mayan Long Count Calendar officially ends at 0500 PDT 21 Dec 2012.

    The wife and I are going to watch 2012 tonight. We WERE going to watch it tomorrow, but if the word DOES end, I don't want to miss it... :D

    But at least I can share this auspicious occasion with my fellow Weigantians tonight...

    FIVE HUNDRED POSTS BABY!!!!!!!!!

    WOOT!!!! WOOT!!!!!

    A new record!!! :D

    Couldn't have done it without ya'all... :D

    Michale
    0500

  49. [49] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Tax Hikes on millionaires..

    NO Spending Cuts..

    Democrats say no...

    And REPUBLICANS aren't compromising!!???

    Are you fraking KIDDING ME!!????

    Lol uhm where did you get 'no spending cuts'?? I think you misread (1) What Republicans are proposing and (2) What exactly the Fiscal Cliff is (clue: the fiscal cliff isn't just taxes)...

    Of course they're not compromising, they are voting on an initiative that THEY proposed, THEY like and Democrats have indicated will not pass because IT DOES NOT HAVE DEMOCRAT SUPPORT.

    Do you know what compromise means? Compromise doesn't mean 'halt negotiations to put forward our own position and when the other side doesn't vote for it scream THEY DON'T COMPROMISE' lolol

    I think you think compromise means 'negotiate and when negotiations stall you MUST ADOPT THE OTHER SIDES LATEST OFFER' lolololololololololololololol

  50. [50] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I am constrained to point out that, here in Weigantia, it's universally accepted that neither Republicans NOR Democrats in Congress have a problem with evading work...

    Your bias is showing... AGAIN..

    While I certainly agree with you in this instance, that both sides are bad, recent Republican acts are quite frankly horrendous. Once the Democrats start passing the same bill repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy 35 times in the Senate then you might have an argument. The recent batch of Republicans is bat-shit crazy and doesn't care about getting anything done...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol uhm where did you get 'no spending cuts'??

    Plan B includes taxes on Millionaires (which Democrats CLAIM they want. NOW Democrats want taxes on the Middle Class)...

    Plan B also includes indeterminate Spending Cuts to be agreed upon at a later date..

    TAX HIKES for Millionaires..

    NO SPENDING cuts..

    And Democrats STILL say "NO!!"...

    So who ain't compromisin' here!???

    While I certainly agree with you in this instance, that both sides are bad, recent Republican acts are quite frankly horrendous.

    You mean like dismissing Senators so they could go to a movie??

    Adjourning for XMAS while Middle Class Americans are facing the largest tax hike in history..

    THAT'S not "horrendous"???

    Face it.. In THIS case, Democrats are no better than Republicans...

    Michale
    0501

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Adjourning for XMAS while Middle Class Americans are facing the largest tax hike in history..

    THAT'S not "horrendous"???

    Face it.. In THIS case, Democrats are no better than Republicans...

    i'll agree with you on the last point, but not on the preceding points. first, they always adjourn for christmas. and labor day, and flag day, to see a movie - pretty much any time of the day, week or year that they can possibly conceive not to work.

    second, it is not exactly a tax hike, it is the expiration of a tax cut. if you go to a store the day after a sale on an item expires, is it a price hike on the item, or did the prices just go back to normal?

    third, we're not talking about a huge amount of money, relative to the overall value. the statement that it's the largest rise "in history" doesn't take inflation into account, especially since the last time anyone's taxes went up the dollar was worth more than twice what it's worth now.

    fourth, there's an un-mentioned benefit of reducing the
    deficit, with the ultra rich contributing slightly higher percentages than the rest of us, for a change. deficits do matter, y'know.

    so no, for the most part it's not particularly horrendous.

    ~joshua

  53. [53] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Plan B also includes indeterminate Spending Cuts to be agreed upon at a later date..

    TAX HIKES for Millionaires..

    NO SPENDING cuts..

    Loooooooooooooooool you can't even see when you contradict yourself in the same sentence.

    Anyway might be a moot point, all reports just now saying that Boehner can't even get it passed. That's what happens when you try and jump ship before a deal is reached like a complete moron.

    Although my point in [40] of Boehner using the vote as 'do you see what level of crazy I'm dealing with??' might be true...

  54. [54] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh Dear. Plan B pulled by Boehner. Epic fail.

  55. [55] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Amazing. Boehner's position is now back to no tax rises at all. Lololol.

    "The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass. Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt. The Senate must now act."

    Utterly amazing.

  56. [56] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michty6 -

    And, icing on the cake, Boehner just sent the House home until after Xmas.

    Everyone, all together now...

    "We WISH you a Merry CLIFFmas
    We WISH you a Merry CLIFFmas
    We WISH you a Merry CLI-II-IIF-mas
    And a Happy New Idear!"

    OK, you have to say that last line with the New England trailing "R"... couldn't come up with a better last line...

    Heh.

    -CW

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If Obama compromises any further now from his $400k package offer after today's nonsense he will officially be the worst negotiator ever.

    In fact if I were him I'd tell Boehner this offer is now off the table and his previous $250k level is now his offer :)

    (I'm only half joking in the last paragraph as well)

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    I completely agree with that assessment.

    I'd love to see Obama tell Boehner it's back to the original offer or you'll suffer the consequences of raising everyone's taxes.

    Not a joke!

  59. [59] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass.

    Hahahahahahhhhhaahhahhh. Boehner can't pass his own proposal. Wow. Just wow.

    Great job, Johnny!

    -David

  60. [60] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "It’s the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party, and we are going to be seen, more and more, as a bunch of extremists that can’t even get the majority of our own people to support the policies we’re putting forward. If you’re not a governing majority, you’re not going to be a majority very long.” - Stephen LaTourette (R. OH)

    Ummm ... yep

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Anyway might be a moot point, all reports just now saying that Boehner can't even get it passed. That's what happens when you try and jump ship before a deal is reached like a complete moron.

    Once again, the bias is glaring...

    Democrats have done this ALL the time and no one here said boo....

    CW,
    And, icing on the cake, Boehner just sent the House home until after Xmas.

    How can you slam Boehner for sending everyone home for Xmas and give Reid a pass for doing the exact same thing??

    Joshua,

    i'll agree with you on the last point, but not on the preceding points. first, they always adjourn for christmas. and labor day, and flag day, to see a movie - pretty much any time of the day, week or year that they can possibly conceive not to work.

    Exactly. And Weigantians have usually universally agreed that it's a horrendous act that BOTH Partys are guilty.

    Now, some only agree it's "horrendous" only when Republicans do it.

    second, it is not exactly a tax hike, it is the expiration of a tax cut. if you go to a store the day after a sale on an item expires, is it a price hike on the item, or did the prices just go back to normal?

    Semantics.. If you are paying more in taxes, it's a tax hike...

    If a person is paying $20 for an item that has been on "sale" for 10 years and one day the person has to pay $50 for the same item, it's a price increase. Do you think the customer is going to listen to the clerk when they say, "No, that was a sale price for a decade. Now it's at the normal price."

    third, we're not talking about a huge amount of money, relative to the overall value. the statement that it's the largest rise "in history" doesn't take inflation into account, especially since the last time anyone's taxes went up the dollar was worth more than twice what it's worth now.

    Again, semantics.. We can discuss what the definition of "is" is all day long.. But when all is said and done, it's the largest tax hike in history...

    However, in the interests of fairness and accuracy...

    It's the largest tax hike in history, unadjusted for inflation. :D

    fourth, there's an un-mentioned benefit of reducing the
    deficit, with the ultra rich contributing slightly higher percentages than the rest of us, for a change. deficits do matter, y'know.

    Yea, they do.. Democrats should have thought of that before they increased it by trillions..

    I am also constrained to point out that the kinds of taxes that Democrats are demanding won't put a dent in the deficit unless they get their spending addiction under control..

    When you have an irresponsible teenager who can't stop spending money, giving them MORE money to spend is not the answer..

    Michale
    0502

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    with the ultra rich contributing slightly higher percentages than the rest of us, for a change.

    I am also constrained to point out that we are not talking about the "ultra rich"...

    We're talking about people, familys and businesses that make $250K....

    That isn't the "ultra rich" by ANY stretch..

    If you want to tax people and businesses who make over a million a year, you won't hear a peep outta me. That the tax plan that David and I and Pelosi and Boehner agreed on.. You can't get more bi-partisan than that!! :D

    To quote a wise oracle

    "If you are going to tax the RICH then tax the RICH"

    Why tax the Middle Class???

    Michale
    0503

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you want to tax people and businesses who make over a million a year, you won't hear a peep outta me.

    But apparently this plan is even too extreme for Republicans?

    WTF?

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/how-boehner-s-plan-b-vote-imploded-20121220

    So let me get this straight ... They're willing to raise taxes on everyone because they can't include the payout to those making over $1 million a year?

    BTW- If you make over $1 million a year, you are likely far more than a millionaire. This is per year.

    I bet I know what they would vote for ... a tax cut for JUST those making over $1 million a year. I don't think they'd have any qualms about that whatsoever.

    Even I'm struggling trying to understand what they're thinking with this vote though. Seriously, wtf happened?

    -David

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hahahahahahhhhhaahhahhh. Boehner can't pass his own proposal. Wow. Just wow.

    Jeezus, ya'all act like this is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence that ONLY happens to the Right..

    I am constrained to point out that Democrats routinely have had to pull legislation from consideration when they couldn't muster the votes for their own members...

    Much more so than Republicans..

    Maybe that explains ya'alls giddiness.......

    " The last time I saw your father we were in the library. He was very close to tracking down the Knight's tomb. I've never seen him so excited. He was as giddy as a schoolboy."
    "Who, Atilla The Professor? He was never giddy, even when he was a schoolboy."

    -Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade

    :D

    ..... over it happening to Republicans. Because it's so rare... :D

    Michale
    0504

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, ya'all act like this is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence that ONLY happens to the Right..

    Don't worry.. I'll be here to pull ya'all down firmly back to Planet Earth.. :D

    Michale
    0505

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    So let me get this straight ... They're willing to raise taxes on everyone because they can't include the payout to those making over $1 million a year?

    Just as Democrats are willing to raise taxes on ALL of the Middle Class because they can't stick it to the Rich and the upper Middle Class...

    As always, it works both ways..

    You were on board with the million dollar a year mark before??

    What has changed???

    Where's yer sense of compromise???

    And, if you say that the fiscal cliff, a new recession and the largest tax hike in history (unadjusted for inflation) *IS* the compromise, I will surely taunt you a second time...... :D

    Michale
    0506

  67. [67] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where's yer sense of compromise???

    That's just it, Michale. There can't be any compromise.

    There can't be because Republicans won't accept anything less than no compromise - the Romney plan.

    Republicans can't even pass the non-compromise compromise designed to make Democrats look uncompromising.

    You can spin all you want, but the fact is the Republican party has just said they are unwilling to accept ANY compromise. Even their own.

    No wonder people see them as nutjobs.

    -David

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    There can't be because Republicans won't accept anything less than no compromise - the Romney plan.

    And Democrats won't accept anything less than NO SPENDING cuts...

    Again, it works BOTH ways....

    You can spin all you want, but the fact is the Republican party has just said they are unwilling to accept ANY compromise. Even their own.

    And how is that any different than Democrats not willing to accept ANY compromise, even on THEIR own plan???

    No wonder people see them as nutjobs.

    Only Democrats see Republicans as nutjobs.. :D

    Truly independents see ALL politicians as nutjobs.. :D

    Michale
    0507

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, the world just ended 30 seconds ago.. :D

    Spooky... Just as I typed this, a huge gust of wind blew thru and made my back door fling open with a very loud BANG!!!!

    Please excuse me. I have to go change my underwear... :D

    Michale
    0508

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And Democrats won't accept anything less than NO SPENDING cuts.

    Huh?

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11798889/1/here-are-the-budget-cuts-president-obama-has-offered.html

    Maybe we should start talking about mental health again.

    I'm curious as to how someone can continue to deny even the simplest of realities.

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    There can't be because Republicans won't accept anything less than no compromise - the Romney plan.

    No matter how you spin it, BOTH Partys would screw over the American people because they can't have their way...

    Why you think Democrats are any better, in spite of a BUTTLOAD of evidence to the contrary, is beyond me...

    Michale
    0509

  72. [72] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW ... here's my letter to my Congressman this morning ...

    Dear Congressman Chabot,

    What is wrong with the Republican party?

    When you can't even pass your own compromise, it looks like you're incapable of any type of leadership whatsoever.

    Have a great holiday.

    -David

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No matter how you spin it, BOTH Partys would screw over the American people because they can't have their way.

    Democrats = Willing to compromise

    Republicans = Unable to pass their own compromise

    -David

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats = Willing to compromise

    Bullshit...

    When Democrats put specific Spending Cuts on the table, THEN you can make the claim that Democrats are willing to compromise..

    Until that happens, you can't...

    Michale
    0511

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans = Unable to pass their own compromise

    Which, under Democrat rule, happened at least a couple times a week..

    Big deal.... It's a straw dragon yer trying to slay...

    Michale
    0512

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When Democrats put specific Spending Cuts on the table, THEN you can make the claim that Democrats are willing to compromise.

    Specific cuts ...

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11798889/1/here-are-the-budget-cuts-president-obama-has-offered.html

    AND Democrats were willing to accept the Republican cuts to Social Security through the chained CPI.

    Republicans have gone off a cliff alright. The sanity one.

    -David

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats = Willing to compromise

    Bullshit...

    OK, I will give you a cookie.. Democrats DO appear to be compromising on the tax hike cut-off... I hear it's up to $800K...

    So, in that, they are compromising..

    But, my point is still valid.. Until Democrats put specific spending cuts on the table, they aren't compromising...

    Michale
    0514

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Specific cuts ...

    Yea, about as specific as Obama saying he will forgo a hair treatment to once every 2 weeks instead of once every week...

    Com'on David! Those cuts amount to less then a billion dollars...

    That's not cuts, that's accounting gimmicks... It's like saying we're gonna have an extra 5 billion to spend when the Afghan war is over...

    At best, it's a gimmick. At worst, it's an out an out lie...

    Michale
    0515

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Until Democrats put specific spending cuts on the table, they aren't compromising.

    Here's the list again ...

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/11798889/1/here-are-the-budget-cuts-president-obama-has-offered.html

    Now where's that Republican compromise?

    Oh yeah, there isn't one.

    Nut ... jobs.

    -David

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW ...

    CPI cuts to Social Security = specific spending cut .

    How is that not specific, Michale? And a not popular one at that.

    Where's the Republican compromise again?

    <<<<>>>>

    That's the sound of crickets saying: Eat a shit sandwich America!

    -David

  81. [81] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Until Democrats put specific spending cuts on the table

    Hahahahah. Ummm ... No.

    Where are ANY compromises from Republicans on revenue?

    Clearly though Michale you are determined to defend them at all costs.

    Good luck w/ your insanity defense and Merry Xmas!

    -David

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    CPI cuts to Social Security = specific spending cut .

    Equals ONE Specific Spending Cut..

    OK, Democrats can raise ONE millionaire's taxes.

    Com'on David. That's not a compromise, it's a cop out..

    Put specific medicare cuts on the table. Put specific welfare cuts on the table. Put specific Unemployment cuts on the table.. Put Stimulus spending on hold. Put specific Defense Cuts on the table..

    Be as specific on cuts as Democrats want specifics on taxes..

    Anything less and it ain't a compromise..

    That's the sound of crickets saying: Eat a shit sandwich America!

    Yep and it's DEMOCRATS as well as Republicans who are spreading the shit...

    Michale
    0518

  83. [83] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Liz
    I'd love to see Obama tell Boehner it's back to the original offer or you'll suffer the consequences of raising everyone's taxes.

    Not a joke!

    Or just go over the cliff and then pass a bill to protect those earning <$250k from tax cuts. The bill would have universal support since taxes will have already gone up and the Church of Norquist and Republican says you MUST vote for anything that decreases taxes...

    Of course Obama continues to be naive and actually try to negotiate with these idiots. If I were Obama I would just make it clear this is what I'm doing see you on Jan 2nd.

    The sequester cuts are actually considerably less harmful to the poor/elderly/veterans/unemployed than the cuts Obama proposed in his own latest offer. Why the Republicans didn't snap his hand off I'll never know.

    The only downside to this path is that it pushes the extension of the debt ceiling into 2013...

    I am constrained to point out that Democrats routinely have had to pull legislation from consideration when they couldn't muster the votes for their own members...

    Much more so than Republicans..

    Maybe that explains ya'alls giddiness......

    Uhm you miss the point that this wasn't a normal piece of legislation but a complete stunt vote which he BROKE OFF NEGOTIATIONS to have. He broke off negotiations for 3 DAYS to do NOTHING. This is just a tad different than a normal piece of legislation being pulled... When you can't even pass your stunt votes you are in trouble...

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that we are not talking about the "ultra rich"...

    We're talking about people, familys and businesses that make $250K....

    That isn't the "ultra rich" by ANY stretch..

    If you want to tax people and businesses who make over a million a year, you won't hear a peep outta me. That the tax plan that David and I and Pelosi and Boehner agreed on.. You can't get more bi-partisan than that!! :D

    To quote a wise oracle

    "If you are going to tax the RICH then tax the RICH"

    Why tax the Middle Class???

    This is probably one of the dumbest posts you've made Michale. I think you don't understand what 'Middle' means. Clue: top 2% is not 'Middle'.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Uhm you miss the point that this wasn't a normal piece of legislation but a complete stunt vote which he BROKE OFF NEGOTIATIONS to have.

    Yea, that happened with Democrats weekly..

    Like I said, I understand ya'alls giddiness. It's fun for ya'all to see Republicans have the same faults as Democrats.. :D

    This is probably one of the dumbest posts you've made Michale. I think you don't understand what 'Middle' means. Clue: top 2% is not 'Middle'.

    Chris himself said that those who earn $250K a year would be upper Middle Class. I believe that's the EXACT term he used..

    Remember, we're talking about the US, not the UK...

    Here in the US, People, Families and Businesses who earn $250K a year are considered upper middle class.

    It's moot anyways. Obama upped the income bracket to $800K.... I can live with that..

    Michale
    0520

  86. [86] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Try reading about Middle Class Michale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

    Find any sociologist who thinks >$100k (i.e. top 10% earner) is middle class.

    Source on the $800k?

  87. [87] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Here is the latest graphs of offers and compromises including Plan B

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/fiscaloffers31.jpg

    LOL.

  88. [88] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Great piece on Obama's latest offer, the fiscal cliff and how none of this will solve America's debt problem http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/20/is-obamas-plan-better-than-going-off-the-fiscal-cliff/

    "I want to be clear on this, so I’m going to repeat it: The level of tax revenues the Obama administration is seeking is not sufficient to fund the federal government in the long term. That’s why the major fiscal commissions arrived at much higher tax totals: Simpson-Bowles had $2.6 trillion in revenue, and Domenici-Rivlin called for $1.6 trillion."

    "It would be interesting if the White House made it clear that this is a onetime offer, meaning that if Republicans drive us off the cliff, the offer is off the table, and they won’t accept anything less than, say, $1.5 trillion in taxes. But they’re not likely to do that. If we go off the cliff and the Republicans get blamed and decide to fold, the White House isn’t going to risk making themselves the bad guys by opposing their own offer. And even if they did risk it, congressional Democrats wouldn’t hold the line."

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Source on the $800k?

    CW :D

    Here is the latest graphs of offers and compromises including Plan B

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/fiscaloffers31.jpg

    Yer source is "WonkBlog"???

    No wonder yer laughing.. I would laugh too at such ridiculousness.. :D

    Michale
    0521

  90. [90] 
    michty6 wrote:

    For people who like numbers, charts, graphs and the details behind everything (i.e. wonks) it is an excellent blog :)

    Probably one of my favourite blogs actually, in that is breaks down the numbers and shows how stupid both sides are in America.

    Man you had me scurrying all over trying to find this $800k thing, I thought you were serious!

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man you had me scurrying all over trying to find this $800k thing, I thought you were serious!

    You obviously didn't listen to CW's interview.. :D

    He's a very reliable source. If he says it's out there, then it's out there...

    So, what do ya say?? You still an Obama-Bot drunk on the kool-aid if Obama goes to 800K?? :D

    Michale
    0522

  92. [92] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I think Obama going to $800k is a huge error. In fact I think $400k is a huge error.

    But even worse is how far he is pushing the boundary on future cuts to social programs. I'm not totally against these - Medicare etc are going to be problems IN FUTURE - but I think it would be better to tackle the problems of the CURRENT deficit first before tackling future deficit problems lol.

    And on that front lack of REVENUE is one of the 3 biggest issues facing America today.

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Looks like the GOP move to attack Rice has worked and has put them in a good position to gain another Senate seat...

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the GOP move to attack Rice has worked and has put them in a good position to gain another Senate seat...

    It wasn't the GOP that did it. It was her own bonehead lies...

    As far as gaining a Senate seat, how do ya figure?? Kerry will be SecState and MA gov will appt a Dem to place hold...

    Michale
    MFCCFL

  95. [95] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I wouldn't be so sure. Consider that Scott Brown:
    (1) Can raise shit tonnes of money as he is willing to do Wall St's bidding
    (2) Can lie through his teeth and will say or do anything to get elected again. For example, today "As a state legislator in Massachusetts I supported an assault weapons ban thinking other states would follow suit. But unfortunately, they have not and innocent people are being killed. As a result, I support a federal assault weapons ban, perhaps like the legislation we have in Massachusetts" even though he has LONG supported no further restrictions on guns.
    (3) He won in almost exactly this position before

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good call, michty :D

    Michale
    0524

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:
  98. [98] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes Dem's are going to have to put in someone with name recognition (again) and a shit tonne of money to retain that seat...

    In other news I liked the BBC North American Editor's take on yesterday: "Republican leader John Boehner has not just ended up with egg on his face. There is probably a side of hash browns, and the odd waffle and drop of maple syrup sticking to him as well."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20807464

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news I liked the BBC North American Editor's take on yesterday: "Republican leader John Boehner has not just ended up with egg on his face. There is probably a side of hash browns, and the odd waffle and drop of maple syrup sticking to him as well."

    There is no doubt that this is embarrassing for Boehner and is well-deserved..

    My only point has been it's undeniable that Democrats have done this and so much more often than Republicans...

    In other words, it's something new for Republicans..

    It's old hat with Democrats (Google "herding cats") :D

    Michale
    0526

  100. [100] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Best line of the day. From The American Conservative ....

    "I’d say I’m in disbelief, but this clown show has been going on too long now to say that."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/now-what/

    Those Lefties ... what will they come up with next?!!!

    -David

  101. [101] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The first response in that blog post is spot on David:
    "The joke is they’re not “Conservatives.” They’ve hijacked it."

    This is true for about 3/4 of Republicans nowadays.

  102. [102] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "The joke is they’re not “Conservatives.” They’ve hijacked it."

    Those damn liberals!!! They're everywhere!!!!!

    Trying to take our guns and our freedumz!

    Even Obama is worried!

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-paranoid-government-coming-for-his-guns,30638/

    -David

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trying to take our guns and our freedumz!

    “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.”
    -Senator Biden

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    Michale
    0528

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/21/journalists-slam-nra-throughout-press-conference/

    Ahhh Yea.. No Left-Wing bias in the MSM... NONE whatsoever... :D

    Michale
    0529

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do we REALLY want to re-open the gun debate... AGAIN???

    Cuz, let's face facts.. Ya'all didna fare too well the last time... :D

    Michale
    0530

  106. [106] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do we REALLY want to re-open the gun debate... AGAIN?

    We don't have to debate. The NRA is winning the debate for us.

    -David

  107. [107] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Cuz, let's face facts.. Ya'all didna fare too well the last time... :D

    I thought the NRA press conference was completely absurd. An absolute joke. Could not have been further away from the mood of the nation if they tried. I am glad to see the media thought the same.

    "The NRA’s Washington leadership has long been out of step with its members, and never has that been so apparent as this morning. Their press conference was a shameful evasion of the crisis facing our country. Instead of offering solutions to a problem they have helped create, they offered a paranoid, dystopian vision of a more dangerous and violent America where everyone is armed and no place is safe. Leadership is about taking responsibility, especially in times of crisis. Today the NRA’s lobbyists blamed everyone but themselves for the crisis of gun violence. While they promote armed guards, they continue to oppose the most basic and common sense steps we can take to save lives - not only in schools, but in our movie theaters, malls, and streets. Enough. As a country, we must rise above special interest politics. Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns. That’s why 74 percent of NRA members support common sense restrictions like criminal background checks for anyone buying a gun. It is time for Americans who care about the Second Amendment and reasonable gun restrictions to join together to work with the President and Congress to stop the gun violence in this country. Demand a plan.”
    - Michael Bloomberg responds to the NRA conference

  108. [108] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lololololol:

    "This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won’t be taking questions.
    - NRA today

  109. [109] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'm only slightly surprised that they stopped shy of 'we need to arm our kids'...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:
  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    "This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won’t be taking questions.

    Sounds like an Obama Press Conference...

    Michale
    0532

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am glad to see the media thought the same.

    Of course the media thought the same..

    They are in the bag for Obama and Democrats..

    Duh.....

    Michale
    0533

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Of course the media thought the same..

    26 people just died and these utter morons are crowing about how there isn't a gun violence problem and completely misread the mood of the nation..

    FYP

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm only slightly surprised that they stopped shy of 'we need to arm our kids'...

    In a Gallup Poll over 50% of Independents, Republicans and DEMOCRATS said that police officers at schools is the best solution.

    In other words, more guns is the best solution according to the majority of ALL Americans, regardless of political affiliation..

    Michale
    0534

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    26 people just died and these utter morons are crowing about how there isn't a gun violence problem and completely misread the mood of the nation..

    Like I said.. The media is in the bag for Obama and Democrats..

    Once again.. DUH....

    Michale
    0535

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's about this time that you bring out your favorite stats that show there is absolutely no correlation between gun laws and gun violence...

    :D

    Michale
    0536

  117. [117] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It's about this time that you bring out your favorite stats that show there is absolutely no correlation between gun laws and gun violence...

    You mean statistics like: guns are like cars, you take your kids to school in them!

    Or that polling shows 65% said that allowing assault weapons ownership makes the country more dangerous? Nah the NRA totally hasn't got the mood of the nation wrong - we need more guns not less! MORE GUNS NOW!

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    26 people just died and these utter morons are crowing about how there isn't a gun violence problem and completely misread the mood of the nation..

    And Democrats are completely misreading the solution.. The solution isn't stricter laws..

    CT has some of the strictest laws in the country.

    Guess what??

    The didn't prevent gun violence..

    The solution isn't to create MORE victims...

    I am amazed I have to explain this...

    Michale
    0537

  119. [119] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Not really since we have discussed all this before and you know how wrong you are (but won't admit it as usual).

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually I don't..

    And, since your own STATS showed no correlation, well..

    And I was not the only one here who pointed this out...

    The facts clearly show that strict gun laws do NOT equal less gun violence..

    Therefore, other solutions must be considered..

    Having an armed officer at schools is a no-brainer..

    Which explains why our Democrat leaders won't consider it.

    They have no brains. Only a political agenda. :D

    Michale
    0538

  121. [121] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Having an armed officer at schools is a no-brainer..

    Yes that is an absolute no-brainer solution. The UK, after an almost identical attack on a school, banned guns and we've had a massive ZERO attacks on schools since then (16 years and counting). Stupid silly UK leaving our kids in buildings where people aren't carrying deadly weapons. What on earth were we thinking?????

  122. [122] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The facts clearly show that strict gun laws do NOT equal less gun violence..

    Lolol the facts show this very clearly. You (and others) INTERPRETATION of the facts does not lolol.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    I keep telling you..

    UK != USA

    What may work there (which is dubious because you cherry pick your stats) does not mean it will work here..

    Give it up.. You won't win this argument because all you have on your side is hysterical emotionalism and I have logic, facts, and precedent...

    You can't win!! I've got God on my side!!!
    -Max Van Sydow, NEEDFUL THINGS

    :D

    Michale
    0539

  124. [124] 
    michty6 wrote:

    "I don’t even know where to begin. As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms"
    - Former RNC Charman, Michael Steele

    DAMN YOU AND YOUR LIBERAL BIAS FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN!!!!!

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    You (and others) INTERPRETATION of the facts does not lolol.

    Whatever allows you to sleep at night. :D

    Michale
    0540

  126. [126] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Give it up.. You won't win this argument because all you have on your side is hysterical emotionalism and I have logic, facts, and precedent...

    You do? I've yet to hear them. The finest logic you've come up with is that a gun = a car lol.

    But you are correct, I absolutely should give it up in the face of such 'logic' and 'facts' - since anyone who believes things like the above statement is clearly beyond the point of rational discussion or debate...

  127. [127] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh and a new poll shows 76% support for closing the gun show loophole, and 93% support for mandatory criminal background checks before selling guns.

    Nope the NRA TOTALLY got the mood of the nation correct - MORE GUNS AND LESS CONTROLS is what the nation is hoping for...

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Many schools and school districts across the country have teachers and administrators armed..

    Guess how many of them have ever had a mass-shooting event??

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...

    Guess how many of them have ever had a weapons related accident??

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...

    The facts are clear.. They lead to one inescapable conclusion..

    I am sorry (not really) that the facts derail your leftist agenda..

    But these ARE the facts..

    And you are not entitled to your own facts...

    Michale
    0541

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and a new poll shows 76% support for closing the gun show loophole, and 93% support for mandatory criminal background checks before selling guns.

    I have no problem with those..

    But would they have prevented Sandy Hook??

    No, they wouldn't have..

    Why are you suggesting things using Sandy Hook as an excuse when the things you are suggesting would not have STOPPED Sandy Hook???

    Once again.... DUUUHHHHHHH

    Michale
    0542

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    See, that's the problem with the Left..

    They don't want to talk about ACTUAL solutions that would PREVENT another Sandy Hook.

    The Left just wants to push their agenda, dead children be damned..

    It's sickening...

    Michale
    0543

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Many schools and school districts across the country have teachers and administrators armed..

    Guess how many of them have ever had a mass-shooting event??

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...

    Guess how many of them have ever had a weapons related accident??

    NONE... ZERO... ZILCH... NADA...

    The facts are clear.. They lead to one inescapable conclusion..

    I am sorry (not really) that the facts derail your leftist agenda..

    But these ARE the facts..

    And you are not entitled to your own facts...

    Uhm what's that buzzer noise again. MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.
    WRONG ANSWER.

    It amazes me how wrong you are in your 'facts' almost every single time lolololol.

    Ever heard of a school called Columbine? You might want to look up the armed guard situation at that school back in 1999...

  132. [132] 
    michty6 wrote:

    They don't want to talk about ACTUAL solutions that would PREVENT another Sandy Hook.

    The Left just wants to push their agenda, dead children be damned..

    Again you don't understand how banning or limiting something works. ANYTHING that means less guns out there means less chance of Sandy Hook happening again. LITERALLY ANYTHING. That is how supply and demand works...

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Anyway I'm off for Xmas and New Year - so we'll have to postpone the 'intellectual' discussions about how a car has exactly the same utility value to a person as a gun until then lololol. Have a good one.

    (Had to put intellectual in inverted commas so I don't get accused of word abuse on the level of your abuse of the word fact!)

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ever heard of a school called Columbine? You might want to look up the armed guard situation at that school back in 1999...

    You make the claim..

    YOU provide the substantiation..

    Regardless, did I say "armed guard"??

    No.. I said TEACHERS and/or ADMINISTRATORs

    My claim still stands as factual..

    Your claim is false (IE bullshit) until proven otherwise.

    Again you don't understand how banning or limiting something works. ANYTHING that means less guns out there means less chance of Sandy Hook happening again. LITERALLY ANYTHING. That is how supply and demand works...

    Again. Bullshit..

    You are using the Republicans "trickle down" theory..

    You are claiming that, just because weapons are "banned" that HAS to mean a Sandy Hook can't happen..

    It's pure unadulterated bullshit...

    Unless you can enforce a complete ban (which you can't) a ban does absolutely NO GOOD..

    Mexico has a COMPLETE BAN... Has some of the highest gun violence in the world..

    Switzerland and Israel?? A gun in every cupboard. Some of the highest gun ownership per capita in the world..

    Also amongst the lowest gun violence in the world..

    There is NO CORRELATION between gun laws and gun violence.

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA...

    Your OWN stats PROVE this...

    NO LAWS would have prevented Sandy Hook... PERIOD...

    Gun laws are NOT the answer...

    They have been tried here in the US and they have failed time and time again..

    Get a clue, dood. Yer way outta yer comfort zone..

    Michale
    0544

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, slap my face and call me stupid..

    MoveOn is on board with my idea of armed officers in every school..

    My gods, maybe today IS the end of the world!

    Michale
    0545

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Truest Words Ever Spoken

    "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    Michale
    0551

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    Or a NINJA! :p

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or a NINJA! :p

    Touche' :D

    Michale
    0552

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, it's funny..

    The Hysterical Left is ridiculing the NRA's stance that armed officers should be in schools..

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

    Yet, the First Daughters have ELEVEN armed officers at their school, not counting Secret Service...

    Ahhhhh I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.... :D

    Michale
    0564

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's an interesting stat...

    In all the mass-shootings since 1950 the average number of people killed before cops arrived and stopped the perp was 14.

    The average number of people killed when the perp was stopped by an armed civilian??

    2.5

    The solution to the problem of mass-shootings is a no brainer...

    Michale
    0565

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]