PDA

View Full Version : Republicans demonstrate their consistent and sincere respect for counter-majoritarian rules


Don Zeko
01-19-2011, 02:27 PM
via (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/house_republicans_discover_tha.html) Ezra Klein:

Ahead of the vote Wednesday, House Republican leaders pressed a new line of attack, accusing Democrats of thwarting the will of the people by not committing to give the bill an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Ok Republicans of BHTV, let me have it. When Dems were using budget reconciliation to pass part of the ACA, that was a ridiculous end-run around Senate rules. So naturally these Republicans are displaying a thuggish disrespect for the rights of Congressional minorities, right?

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 02:38 PM
I can answer that in seven letters (http://www.google.com/search?q=IOKIYAR).

Also, Ezra's lede is hilarious.

Don Zeko
01-19-2011, 02:40 PM
Shorter House Republicans:
http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/Calvinball_small.jpg

Kevin Drum: (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/01/gops-calvinball-world)

I haven't gotten around to blogging about [Republican criticism of the CBO] before, but Ezra did a useful point-by-point takedown here (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/omnibus_post_on_the_gimmicks_i.html), and today's post is a good followup. It's a pretty thorough takedown of the fanciful Calvinball world that Republicans live in these days. They believe what they believe, and they've set things up so that no evidence is ever allowed to contradict what they believe. And now they're in charge of half of Congress once again. Happy days.

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 02:59 PM
K-Drum's post is also worth reading for the never-ending comedy of the GOP's attitude towards the CBO.

chiwhisoxx
01-19-2011, 04:00 PM
the complaints about process during healthcare were stupid

Don Zeko
01-19-2011, 04:18 PM
I agree. Can you feel the bipartisan comity?

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 07:32 PM
Not to mention their keen grasp of how our system of government works.

It's a shame Jonah, Jr. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257537/repealed-daniel-foster) keeps getting invited to be a diavlogger.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5236/danielfosterisaidiot.jpg

What an idiot.

Let us turn to a comedy site (an intentional comedy site, I should say) for a dose of reality (http://wonkette.com/435619/house-republicans-do-useless-thing-they-promised-to-do).

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 08:51 PM
Not to mention their keen grasp of how our system of government works.

It's a shame Jonah, Jr. (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257537/repealed-daniel-foster) keeps getting invited to be a diavlogger.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5236/danielfosterisaidiot.jpg

What an idiot.

Let us turn to a comedy site (an intentional comedy site, I should say) for a dose of reality (http://wonkette.com/435619/house-republicans-do-useless-thing-they-promised-to-do).

Pareene has a good round-up of things your Republican Representatives were saying: "The absurd, pointless House healthcare reform repeal debate (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/19/healthcare_repeal_debate/index.html)."

Don Zeko
01-19-2011, 09:46 PM
While I'm on the subject, I agree with pretty much every word of this Jon Chait post. (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81829/republicans-learn-hate-the-filibuster)

badhatharry
01-19-2011, 09:57 PM
all's fair in love and politics. as I have pointed out many times, they're all assholes. except paul ryan.

TwinSwords
01-19-2011, 11:06 PM
all's fair in love and politics. as I have pointed out many times, they're all assholes. except paul ryan.

Badhat,
If you were going to go out to dinner tonight, would it be dishonest of you to not count the cost of your home mortgage as part of the cost of your dinner? Or should you count the cost of your mortgage as part of the cost of your meal?

TwinSwords
01-19-2011, 11:14 PM
all's fair in love and politics.

I knew this was going to be the response when I read DZ's post earlier. The basic philosophy is "do whatever it takes to defeat the Democrats."

This just goes to prove once again that fundamental dishonesty is not incidental to the conservative movement -- it's essential to it.

bjkeefe
01-19-2011, 11:36 PM
While I'm on the subject, I agree with pretty much every word of this Jon Chait post. (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/81829/republicans-learn-hate-the-filibuster)

Yes. The last paragraph is especially good.

Don Zeko
01-20-2011, 01:13 AM
Badhat,
If you were going to go out to dinner tonight, would it be dishonest of you to not count the cost of your home mortgage as part of the cost of your dinner? Or should you count the cost of your mortgage as part of the cost of your meal?

The silver lining to this whole Doc Fix zombie lie is that, since it never goes away no matter how well you rebut it, it spurs liberals on to ever cleverer ways of pointing out that it's a lie. This goes in that file. And yes, Ryan is a liar and a fraud.

jimM47
01-20-2011, 02:07 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this is called posturing. Everyone knows the bill can't pass the Senate, much less get cloture, but Republicans politicians are nevertheless going to try to press (inartfully it appears) the idea of it going to the floor because they'd like (1) for Democrats up for election in two years to be on record with a vote, be it cloture or on the bill itself, or (2) for Democrats to appear weak for not being willing to go on record with a vote.

bjkeefe
01-20-2011, 03:07 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this is called posturing. Everyone knows the bill can't pass the Senate, much less get cloture, but Republicans politicians are nevertheless going to try to press (inartfully it appears) the idea of it going to the floor because they'd like (1) for Democrats up for election in two years to be on record with a vote, be it cloture or on the bill itself, or (2) for Democrats to appear weak for not being willing to go on record with a vote.

Not sure how well that (http://twitter.com/#!/SuzyKhimm/status/27863802577948673) will work (http://twitter.com/#!/suzykhimm/statuses/27863978076020736):

RT @jacksonjk Three Dems voting for #HCR repeal- Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)

....which means 10 House Democrats who voted against the original health reform bill refused to repeal it today.

TwinSwords
01-20-2011, 06:48 AM
The silver lining to this whole Doc Fix zombie lie is that, since it never goes away no matter how well you rebut it, it spurs liberals on to ever cleverer ways of pointing out that it's a lie. This goes in that file. And yes, Ryan is a liar and a fraud.

Heh. No doubt. I suspect badhat hasn't seen the Krugman column in question, so she probably wonders what the hell I'm talking about.

After all, what kind of idiot would include the cost of their mortage in their cost of dinner. Right, badhat?

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 11:45 AM
Badhat,
If you were going to go out to dinner tonight, would it be dishonest of you to not count the cost of your home mortgage as part of the cost of your dinner? Or should you count the cost of your mortgage as part of the cost of your meal?

I always walk out on the check so there is no cost. Sorry I miss your point, but I'm sure it has something to do with the republicans being dishonest and the democrats being angelic.

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 11:49 AM
Heh. No doubt. I suspect badhat hasn't seen the Krugman column in question, so she probably wonders what the hell I'm talking about.

After all, what kind of idiot would include the cost of their mortage in their cost of dinner. Right, badhat?

Actually I have been following Krugman of late and Don has linked his column ad nauseum.

Still, I like Ryan because he's very cute and looks like an FBI agent from the 40's and have no use for Krugman because he's an asshole (but I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to him, let me make that very clear).

PS. I think including the doc fix in the cost of the ACA is a very reasonable point and something Harry Reid originally wanted to do until it looked like the CBO estimate wouldn't turn out so well.

Don Zeko
01-20-2011, 11:55 AM
Still, I like Ryan because he's very cute and looks like an FBI agent from the 40's and have no use for Krugman because he's an asshole (but I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to him, let me make that very clear).

Man, those sound like excellent heuristics for judging the trustworthiness of public figures.

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 12:13 PM
Man, those sound like excellent heuristics for judging the trustworthiness of public figures.

It's all I've got. I'm hopelessly shallow. For instance, I can't even look at Waxman without thinking about how big his nostrils are. It doesn't matter at all what he says.

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 12:22 PM
If I'm not mistaken, this is called posturing. Everyone knows the bill can't pass the Senate, much less get cloture, but Republicans politicians are nevertheless going to try to press (inartfully it appears) the idea of it going to the floor because they'd like (1) for Democrats up for election in two years to be on record with a vote, be it cloture or on the bill itself, or (2) for Democrats to appear weak for not being willing to go on record with a vote.

Yes. it's posturing. I think they've been quite open about this. It will either be beneficial to their cause or not.

handle
01-20-2011, 03:40 PM
Yes. it's posturing. I think they've been quite open about this. It will either be beneficial to their cause or not.

They are wasting our tax dollars. I thought the GOP was against this.

bjkeefe
01-20-2011, 05:22 PM
Still, I like Ryan because he's very cute and looks like an FBI agent from the 40's ...

It's all I've got. I'm hopelessly shallow. For instance, I can't even look at Waxman without thinking about how big his nostrils are. It doesn't matter at all what he says.

Noted for the record.

chiwhisoxx
01-20-2011, 07:08 PM
Noted for the record.

I really, really hope for the sake of comedy this record actually exists somewhere.

AemJeff
01-20-2011, 07:14 PM
I really, really hope for the sake of comedy this record actually exists somewhere.

Jeeze, chi - the question answers itself: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/search.php?searchid=1424705

Ocean
01-20-2011, 07:20 PM
Jeeze, chi - the question answers itself: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/search.php?searchid=1424705

Wow! We have our own BhTV X-Files! :)

chiwhisoxx
01-20-2011, 07:56 PM
Jeeze, chi - the question answers itself: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/search.php?searchid=1424705

I was more hoping for a filing cabinet next to the computer, with detailed notes on each offense.

Ocean
01-20-2011, 08:03 PM
I was more hoping for a filing cabinet next to the computer, with detailed notes on each offense.

Yes, that's the backup.

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 08:47 PM
They are wasting our tax dollars. I thought the GOP was against this.

Were you concerned when Presdent Obama took two jets to lobby for the Olympics? Were you worried about his carbon footprint? Were you worried about Nancy Pelosi's florist bill?

Besides if they're doing this, they aren't screwing something else up.

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 08:54 PM
I was more hoping for a filing cabinet next to the computer, with detailed notes on each offense.

filing cabinet? he don't need no stinking filing cabinet.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/archivist.jpg

badhatharry
01-20-2011, 09:42 PM
OOOPS I am mistaken! These guys are actually doing something.

They are proposing 2.5 trillion in spending cuts. (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-conservatives-set-to-unveil-2-5-trillion-in-deep-spending-cuts/)

Now that should be applauded.

AemJeff
01-20-2011, 09:48 PM
OOOPS I am mistaken! These guys are actually doing something.

They are proposing 2.5 trillion in spending cuts. (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-conservatives-set-to-unveil-2-5-trillion-in-deep-spending-cuts/)

Now that should be applauded.


They're punting.

(Source (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027623.php) - Steve Benen)

To get there, these Republicans would go after plenty of familiar targets: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, and U.S. Agency for International Development. But given that the U.S. just doesn't spend that much on any of this, the Republican Study Committee has to dig much deeper, going after transportation and infrastructure projects, energy research, aid to states, legal assistance for low-income families, family planning funds, and assistance to American businesses seeking to export their products overseas.

(Even this doesn't come close to $2.5 trillion over 10 years. The RSC makes up the difference by playing some budget games. Brian Beutler explained, "Like most major spending cut proposals, this one's not entirely rigorous. It relies principally on an aspirational spending cap -- specifically, limiting non-defense appropriations totals to their 2006 levels without adjusting for inflation. In other words, it punts the question of what to cut to future Congresses, which could just as easily bust the cap.")

All of these cuts are necessary, the Republican Study Committee believes, because large deficits call for broad sacrifices. This is, of course, the same Republican Study Committee that demanded massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, without paying for them, all of which was financed by larger deficits.

The likelihood of these cuts actually passing is non-existent, but it is a helpful snapshot of Republican priorities. But also note perhaps the most important detail about a plan such as this one: it would be devastating for American jobs. Indeed, if lawmakers were to get together to plot how Congress could deliberately increase unemployment, their plan would look an awful lot like this one. The RSC proposal would deliberately fire thousands of civilian workers, force states to make sweeping job cuts, and lay off thousands more who work in transportation and infrastructure.

Don Zeko
01-20-2011, 09:50 PM
OOOPS I am mistaken! These guys are actually doing something.

They are proposing 2.5 trillion in spending cuts. (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/20/house-gop-conservatives-set-to-unveil-2-5-trillion-in-deep-spending-cuts/)

Now that should be applauded.

Are you serious? Let's start with the first giant red flag of unseriousness

It includes both budget-wide cuts on non-defense discretionary spending back to 2006 levels and proposes the elimination or drastic reduction of more than 50 government programs.

And then we have the stupidly draconian cuts to useful programs. I mean really, who benefits from USAID or infrastructure spending?:

Jordan’s “Spending Reduction Act” would eliminate such things as the U.S. Agency for International Development and its $1.39 billion annual budget, the $445 million annual subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the $1.5 billion annual subsidy for Amtrak, $2.5 billion in high speed rail grants, the $150 million subsidy for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and it would cut in half to $7.5 billion the federal travel budget.

But because of the magic first phrase, "non-defense discretionary," these draconian cuts aren't nearly enough to it the headline number that they want:

But the program eliminations and reductions would account for only $330 billion of the $2.5 trillion in cuts.

Therefore we get completely unspecified cuts to unnamed programs that will never happen:

The bulk of the cuts would come from returning non-defense discretionary spending – which is currently $670 billion out of a $3.8 trillion budget for the 2011 fiscal year – to the 2006 level of $496.7 billion, through 2021.

I almost prefer Paul Ryan's promises to eviscerate Medicare to this drivel. Anyone want odds on whether or not this plan even passes the House? Oh, and for those of you keeping track at home, the annualized cuts here are about equal to the annualized deficit reduction provided by the ACA, which is a real bill that has actually been signed into law, unlike this fantasy plan that's been produced solely as a prop for the State of the Union response speech.

chiwhisoxx
01-20-2011, 10:11 PM
Are you serious? Let's start with the first giant red flag of unseriousness



And then we have the stupidly draconian cuts to useful programs. I mean really, who benefits from USAID or infrastructure spending?:



But because of the magic first phrase, "non-defense discretionary," these draconian cuts aren't nearly enough to it the headline number that they want:



Therefore we get completely unspecified cuts to unnamed programs that will never happen:



I almost prefer Paul Ryan's promises to eviscerate Medicare to this drivel. Anyone want odds on whether or not this plan even passes the House? Oh, and for those of you keeping track at home, the annualized cuts here are about equal to the annualized deficit reduction provided by the ACA, which is a real bill that has actually been signed into law, unlike this fantasy plan that's been produced solely as a prop for the State of the Union response speech.

I don't see why Republicans proposing something they know isn't going to become law is a sign of real "unseriousness." Obviously nothing they're going to propose right now is going anywhere, as President Obama isn't going to sign it, so who cares? As if symbolic legislation that is doomed to fail isn't a bipartisan thing anyways. And I don't think you can say the cuts are both meaningless and small, and then out of the other side of your mouth claim that they're gutting key programs that people desperately need. What's your solution? More legislation like ACA that claims to cut the deficit but will almost certainly explode it instead? Somehow I'm not optimistic.

Starwatcher162536
01-20-2011, 10:13 PM
Add in amendments that slice the Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Missile Defense Agency, & Department of Homeland Security budgets by similar proportions, add a new marginal tax rate of 50% for all those making over two million USD per annum, add a carbon tax of around $30/ton, & both legalize and tax the hell out of pot for good measure and we have a deal.

Seriously now, is statesmanship dead? The history books are filled with compromises that seem to reconcile far more poignant differences then today's deadlock issues.

bjkeefe
01-20-2011, 10:36 PM
I don't see why Republicans proposing something they know isn't going to become law is a sign of real "unseriousness." Obviously nothing they're going to propose right now is going anywhere, ...

The comedy never stops.

chiwhisoxx
01-20-2011, 10:51 PM
The comedy never stops.

How about a real response, beej? If they know with ironclad certainty nothing they propose is going to become law, is it really the end of the world that something they propose has symbolic value, and wouldn't be a perfect law?

Don Zeko
01-20-2011, 10:57 PM
I don't see why Republicans proposing something they know isn't going to become law is a sign of real "unseriousness." Obviously nothing they're going to propose right now is going anywhere, as President Obama isn't going to sign it, so who cares?

If it was a good plan, I wouldn't have a problem with it on the basis of its low odds of passing.

As if symbolic legislation that is doomed to fail isn't a bipartisan thing anyways. And I don't think you can say the cuts are both meaningless and small, and then out of the other side of your mouth claim that they're gutting key programs that people desperately need.

The way I'd put it is that the specific cuts they propose are obviously far too small to make the deficit go away, but they're also cuts that completely eliminate useful programs. If they had proposed similarly sized cuts to programs that are actually inefficient, like farm subsidies, Medicare Advantage, or the federal student loan programs* then I would be just as much of a fan as Badhat.

What's your solution? More legislation like ACA that claims to cut the deficit but will almost certainly explode it instead? Somehow I'm not optimistic.

Why will the ACA almost certainly explode the deficit? That's awfully strong language for a conclusion that's been completely rejected by the CBO.

But as to the budget deficit, I have two responses that I suspect you've guessed already. The first is that we don't need to be worrying about the deficit when we have 9.5% unemployment and low interest rates and inflation. The second is that you have to deal with the big money in the federal budget if you want to get rid of the deficit, which means defense, Social Security, and most importantly Medicare and Medicaid. The Republican plan very explicitly refuses to cut any of those in any way, which is why the cuts take the form of completely eliminating small programs that aren't defended by any huge constituencies. There's just not enough money in the non-defense discretionary budget to make the kind of cuts that are needed.

*oh, any of course both of the latter two were cut as part of the ACA.

bjkeefe
01-20-2011, 11:05 PM
How about a real response, beej?

How about posting something of substance, chee?

chiwhisoxx
01-21-2011, 12:41 AM
If it was a good plan, I wouldn't have a problem with it on the basis of its low odds of passing.



The way I'd put it is that the specific cuts they propose are obviously far too small to make the deficit go away, but they're also cuts that completely eliminate useful programs. If they had proposed similarly sized cuts to programs that are actually inefficient, like farm subsidies, Medicare Advantage, or the federal student loan programs* then I would be just as much of a fan as Badhat.



Why will the ACA almost certainly explode the deficit? That's awfully strong language for a conclusion that's been completely rejected by the CBO.

But as to the budget deficit, I have two responses that I suspect you've guessed already. The first is that we don't need to be worrying about the deficit when we have 9.5% unemployment and low interest rates and inflation. The second is that you have to deal with the big money in the federal budget if you want to get rid of the deficit, which means defense, Social Security, and most importantly Medicare and Medicaid. The Republican plan very explicitly refuses to cut any of those in any way, which is why the cuts take the form of completely eliminating small programs that aren't defended by any huge constituencies. There's just not enough money in the non-defense discretionary budget to make the kind of cuts that are needed.

*oh, any of course both of the latter two were cut as part of the ACA.

I don't have time to respond right now, but thanks for actually responding. Perhaps others could take the hint.

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 12:47 AM
I don't have time to respond right now, but thanks for actually responding. Perhaps others could take the hint.

Try as you might, I doubt you'll ever come close to badhat in the passive-aggressive department.

Remember that you earn the reputation that you have. You don't get to put up one response that is different from your previous junior operative one hundred and then immediately demand to be treated like a Very Serious Person.

chiwhisoxx
01-21-2011, 01:11 AM
Try as you might, I doubt you'll ever come close to badhat in the passive-aggressive department.

Remember that you earn the reputation that you have. You don't get to put up one response that is different from your previous junior operative one hundred and then immediately demand to be treated like a Very Serious Person.

I don't demand you treat me like a serious person. I've seen enough to realize you're going to be antagonistic no matter what, so I don't really care if you treat me like a very serious person. You can if you want. I have no trouble getting along with everyone else here, so I'm not that worried about whatever you think my reputation is.

bjkeefe
01-21-2011, 01:38 AM
I have no trouble getting along with everyone else here, ...

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9709/roflba.gif

Don Zeko
01-21-2011, 11:43 AM
Oh, and while I'm at it, here are a couple of points that I missed last night. First, the plan to cut spending is actually much smaller than 2.5 trillion over 10 years, because only about 330 billion takes the form of specific cuts to specific programs. The rest is a broad promise to cap discretionary spending at a given level. This means that they haven't actually made any such cuts in their plan; they're just promising that future Congresses will make some undefined spending cuts that add up to the 2.5 trillion total.

Again, the contrast to the ACA is instructive. The ACA is a real act of Congress that made large, specific cuts to real programs with politically powerful constituencies. If Republicans actually cared about the deficit, they would have applauded the ACA's cuts to Medicare Advantage and changes to the Federal Student Loan program. Instead, they gleefully and dishonestly pilloried the Democrats for taking away granny's Medicare and are now trying to repeal those cuts. A party that cared about deficits as much as the R's claim to, as opposed to the existing party, which doesn't care about deficits at all, would be trying to repeal the spending in the ACA without repealing the spending cuts that helped make it a net deficit reducer.

handle
01-21-2011, 03:02 PM
Were you concerned when Presdent Obama took two jets to lobby for the Olympics? Were you worried about his carbon footprint? Were you worried about Nancy Pelosi's florist bill?

Besides if they're doing this, they aren't screwing something else up.

They are from the GOP?

bjkeefe
01-26-2011, 02:00 AM
Still, I like Ryan because he's very cute and looks like an FBI agent from the 40's ...

And then there's this (http://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/30119341039030273):

JohnFugelsang During Ryan's speech 'Eddie Munster' trended nationwide on Twitter & if that doesn't make u love the USA then I give up.

about 2 hours ago via web
Retweeted by azjayhawk47 and 100+ others

(visual aid (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x274283))

TwinSwords
01-26-2011, 07:30 AM
Still, I like Ryan because he's very cute...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0wRJjXvyZ1I/TT7mCpLv78I/AAAAAAAAF94/tCZ_FACwZQ4/s1600/Rue%2BPaul2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0wRJjXvyZ1I/TT7l8d7lnaI/AAAAAAAAF9w/rEmu6jKrjYw/s400/Rue%2BPaul.jpg

(h/t drifty (http://driftglass.blogspot.com/))

chiwhisoxx
01-26-2011, 09:43 AM
And then there's this (http://twitter.com/JohnFugelsang/status/30119341039030273):



(visual aid (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x274283))

Well, if Twitter was around when John Kerry was running for president, Herman Munster would have trended for 6 months.

bjkeefe
01-27-2011, 12:37 AM
Well, if Twitter was around when John Kerry was running for president, Herman Munster would have trended for 6 months.

Pretty sure the RWNM managed that without the Twitter. They certainly got you to memorize it.

But, as usual, you've missed the point of my post in your eagerness to find something, anything to say in contradiction. No one ever said we should vote for John Kerry because he was "very cute." By contrast to your teammate's gushing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=196036#post196036) over Paul Ryan, I mean.

chiwhisoxx
01-27-2011, 02:46 AM
Pretty sure the RWNM managed that without the Twitter. They certainly got you to memorize it.

But, as usual, you've missed the point of my post in your eagerness to find something, anything to say in contradiction. No one ever said we should vote for John Kerry because he was "very cute." By contrast to your teammate's gushing (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=196036#post196036) over Paul Ryan, I mean.

Consider a few things: That I got your point, understood it perfectly, and realized it was not a very interesting point, and moved on. And yes, I was "brainwashed" into calling John Kerry Herman Munster by WhateverMoronicAcrnoymItIsThatI'mNotGoingToRepeat. Couldn't have possibly been from the ubiquitous JibJab video, or from SNL, or really any other comedy outlet...And lastly, I don't think badhat (my teammate? really? can I start holding you accountable for everything every liberal says, by claiming they're your teammate?) was being serious. At least I hope she wasn't.

bjkeefe
01-27-2011, 02:54 AM
Consider a few things: That I got your point, understood it perfectly, and realized it was not a very interesting point, and moved on.

You've got a mighty strange understanding of not being interested and moving on, I'll say that. Seemed to me more like your thoughts were these: "I must insert a Republican talking point here, or my boss will yell at me. Staleness is no issue!!!1! As page 1 of the RWNM Manual states, Repetition is everything!!!1!"

Interesting to see you throw your teammate out the window, in a sad effort to save a modicum of face, I will say that.

But back to your hero and hers (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/01/paul-ryan-vs-paul-ryan/) (via (http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/why-i-did-not-live-blog-the-sotu)):

Paul Ryan vs Paul Ryan

I don’t have a ton to say about Paul Ryan’s response speech except to note it was odd that he didn’t mention any of the proposals associated with Paul Ryan’s “budget roadmap.” He spoke at length about his desire for less spending and more limited government. But he didn’t mention which programs, specifically, he wants to eliminate. Which is particularly odd because the “roadmap” calls for, among other things, the elimination of Medicare. That’s kind of a big deal! If Ryan thinks we should do that, wouldn’t a nationally televised addressed be a good opportunity to explain it to people?