The RedState contact email is now getting one anti-GOP email for every one anti-Democrat email. That has never happened before. All these polls showing America hates the GOP are accurate. Even Republicans hate the GOP and the GOP might have to learn that the hard way in 2014 primaries.
The party apparatchik have done nothing since 2010 but give the middle finger to the conservative wing of the GOP.
Erickson is no doubt cheering the fact that Fitch just put the US on Credit Watch. If he thinks the country hates the GOP now, just wait til the markets tank and credit is downgraded.
Yeah, we should follow the advice of the linguine-spined establishment Republicans because it has worked out so well in the past.
"The sky is falling! People don't like the GOP! We'd better cave to the Democrats or the Democrats will get everything they want!"
Apparently, the establishment types don't see the irony. We've done nothing but follow such advice since 2006 and look what it has gotten us. If we constantly capitulate to the Dems, the outcome will be no different than if the government were made up of only Democrats.
So your advice is to default on the debt?
Following Ted Cruz has so far proven to be a friggin' disaster; may as well just take the party down into single digits by not raising the debt ceiling.
So your advice is to default on the debt?
Following Ted Cruz has so far proven to be a friggin' disaster; may as well just take the party down into single digits by not raising the debt ceiling.
Another lib talking point. Treasury has about 10 times as much coming in every month as is required to service our debt and avoid default. If 0bama chooses to violate the Constitution by not paying our debt obligation, that's his choice. If he does, the House should immediately file articles of impeachment.
Yeah, it has been a real disaster. 0bama's approval numbers are the lowest they've ever been, with the curve sloping downward more steeply since the shutdown began than it did before.
We can't figure out how to fund the debt, but we can sure fire up the base with impeachment.
Have you seen the GOP's numbers? Lowest they've ever been, with the curve sloping downward more steeply since the shutdown began. And to think the GOP could have the high ground on Obamacare.
Have you seen the numbers on supporting the revolution of the 1770's? In July 1776 only 20% of the colonists supported the revolution. Surely, you don't think both 0bama and King George will at some future time be found on the right side of the issues.
Unlike King George, Obama was elected by a majority of American voters. The GOP could have won the Senate, but pissed away their chances on nutburgers like Richard Murdock and Todd Akin.
That you have to go back 250 years for an example shows the paucity of your argument.
I have to go back 250 years to find founding documents as good as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Does that mean they suck? Or, Ms. Ginsburg, should we be looking at other countries' constitutions for better examples?
You want something more current? How about the much more recent civil rights fight? In many states a majority of voters supported Jim Crow. I guess they were right?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that might makes right, and it's just not so.
You don't even have "right." The majority of Republicans don't agree with the Tea Party in defaulting on the debt.
Ok, now you're making think you're really thick. Treasury requires a certain amount every month to service the debt. They have 10 times that amount coming in. We have more than enough money coming in to avoid default. There is no reason to default on the debt.
Please, tell me what part of the foregoing paragraph is not clear.
Your argument is purely academic. In the case of default, perception is reality. That's why the GOP is having to pass a Senate bill with mostly Democrat votes.
Your argument is purely academic. In the case of default, perception is reality. That's why the GOP is having to pass a Senate bill with mostly Democrat votes.
When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your
side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side,
make an ad hominem attack.
It's not academic. Default occurs only if the president chooses not to service the debt. He has 10 times as much money as he needs to do so. There is no threat of default due to a lack of income.
Do you know what "default" means?? I'll try to simplify it a bit more so maybe you'll understand. Say I have an income of $2000 per month. I buy a $5000 vehicle with payments of $200 per month. A $200 loan from a $2000 income gives me enough money to pay the loan without defaulting.
Your (the Dems') argument is that if the bank doesn't increase my principle to $6000, I'll default. It's not true. I only default if I don't make the $200 payment.
0bama has enough money to service the debt. If there is a default, it will be his choice. He has 10 times as much money as he needs to avoid it.
Do you think the Fitch credit rating agency knows what default means? Or do they not get the brilliance of your argument either?
You didn't answer my question.
LOL!! Of course I know what default means. But, that's really beside the point now, isn't it?
Now, you answer my question: Do you think the Fitch credit rating agency knows what default means?
Screw the country and screw future generations as long as Sinkspurs 401K isn't impacted.
Screw the country and screw future generations as long as Sinkspurs 401K isn't impacted.
Screw the country and screw future generations as long as Sinkspurs 401K isn't impacted.
I'm trying like hell to provide for myself and my family so that we're not reliant, in any way, on government assistance.
Or is that not allowed any longer in your "put your own interests aside in service to the collective" world?
That sounds like socialism to me.
Question: If a man is "trying like hell to provide for [him]self and [his] family", why would he not be working like hell at PAYING JOBS to earn a living, rather than spending most of his time on the Internet playing political strategist?
Question: If a man is "trying like hell to provide for [him]self and [his] family", why would he not be working like hell at PAYING JOBS to earn a living, rather than spending most of his time on the Internet playing political strategist?
Uh.....what the hell kind of question is that? On many levels?? :chairbang:
Same one other people have been asking lately.
Uh.....what the hell kind of question is that? On many levels?? :chairbang:
Well, if you're self-employed and successful, you can be on here most of the day. Like you? :tongue2:
I receive my work late in the afternoon and work until 3 or 4 in the morning while most of you are sound asleep.
I receive my work late in the afternoon and work until 3 or 4 in the morning while most of you are sound asleep.
I receive my work late in the afternoon and work until 3 or 4 in the morning while most of you are sound asleep.
What makes you think that man doesn't have a PAYING JOB?
It makes me think a man would only expend that much earning time on the Internet if he were paid to do so. That was my capitalistic approach to work. Is your time here for entertainment? Great. Enjoy all those hours on-line opinion-making, when you could be earning for you and your family. In my experience, this is true. You probably disagree--but please do not plead your hard working ethic as a defense.