Tuesday, November 24, 2009


As a RINO I think the attempt at a new and improved GOP sucks donkeys. The party evidently wants to keep moderates from receiving party money so they have come up with a completely retarded purity "resolution" that requires potential candidates adhere to at least 7 out of 10 party ideological platforms, according to CNN. WTF?? This is jacked up. How about picking a candidate that can win vs. an ideologue controlled by a bunch of freaking hard core right-winged evangelicals. This sickens me. Is this where the repugs are heading? Welcome to 1234 puritanical Lane with lame ass Libertarians as neighbors(I capitalized Libertarians because they freak out if you don't)in tow? I can't stop bitching about this issue. I am tired of Glenn Beck conservatives acting like puritanical elitist douche bags. With all due respect, Glenn talks out both sides of his ass regularly and I will not belong to a party that is moving to a far right, laissez faire, anti-government position. The constant Bush bashing and Reagan praising is BULLOCKS! Reagan gave straight up amnesty and deficit spent like a whore with a stolen credit card. Glenn and the boys need to STOP with the cry baby Bush spending mantra. Seriously, if Glenns lip gets any fatter pouting so much he might step on it. If I have to listen to one more "conservative" belly-ache about Bush being as bad as Obama I am going to jerk my car into a tree on purpose and bleed out the pain. As much as I hate, yes HATE, and I mean HATE democrats, the GOP is acting like a spoiled brat on crack and I will not support the new and unimproved party. "The party needs to be more pure" said the ideological crack addict. "We need to go back to the days of true conservatism" says the elephant peanut gallery...how about shut the hell up purists, you are going to cost us another election. This "purist" test is the stupidest idea on the COOLING GLOBE. Even more stupid than government run health care. It's so Al Whore-ish.
While the democratic party is moving further to the left, the republican party has chosen to move further to the right. I reserve the right to sit in the middle with the other RINO's. I am not talking about the Meagan McCain's and Colin Powell's of the party, they are in fact democrats. If you want my support in 2012 DO NOT GO THERE, to the pink fluffy Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter cloud in the sky. Right now, I can't support your hard core ideology that hates every candidate and loves only your constipated elitist far-right platform. Michael Steele has his work cut out for him with a party of freaking PURETARDS! Yea, I'm pissed. Moderates unite. We have no home.


El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Reagan gave straight up amnesty and deficit spent like a whore with a stolen credit card.

Had you bothered to check, which I bet you didn't because the facts might have interfered with your rant, you might have counted the number of times Reagan sent budgets to Congress proposing spending cuts, which the Democrats in turn pronounced DOA and passed their own bloated adventures in government treasury raiding.

As for the amnesty issue, it was accompanied by promises to solve the illegal immigration problem once and for all, and to enforce existing laws. Sound familiar? The difference back then was that Reagan had no reason to disbelieve the promises made. Do you understand now why conservatives went apeshit when GWB and his allies in Congress were pushing "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"? It's because the only thing to be guaranteed in the package was a path to legalization for illegals. The rest - promises to enforce the law, to stop the flow of lawbreakers entering the USA, and to make it easier for people to immigrate legally - was pudding, and nothing else. The problem would not have been solved, and damn good for conservatives for killing that bill. Don't go throwing eggs at Reagan for amnesty. Throw them at the Congresses that followed instead.

And speaking of Congresses, check out the spending in the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II years. What you'll see, if you look at the numbers, is just plain bloody wrong. No damn wonder the "purists", as you call them, are howling for the out-of-control machine to stop. But tell me, Nik... how much government spending at the federal level do you think is appropriate? Maybe your problem is with Glenn Beck's wheels-off communication style, and not so much with his ideas.

Anyway, I do agree that Obama is clueless and has stomped his foot on the debt accelerator in a way that none of his predecessors even considered. And I agree that there ought to be room for moderates in the GOP. And I agree that the "test" the GOP is applying to potential candidates smells, but not because I think the party needs more progressives. They're doing this to throw up roadblocks to outsiders; and quite frankly, after the train wreck that was the Republican Party in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, some new non-political people running as candidates are just what the GOP needs.

The things Obama is doing are a symptom of a problem. They are not the problem itself. The problem is that the president and the Congress can get away with doing what they are doing, regardless of who is in charge. You say, worry about winning the election next time. I say, a fat lot of good it is going to do the USA if a bunch of blankety-blank "moderates" from either party get into power and keep driving the car full speed toward the cliff.

Anyway Nikki, I obviously didn't agree with much of what your wrote this time, but as usual, my compliments to you on the quality of fire you breathed. And I promise that I'll listen to your radio show w/ Maria when I get time.

Nikki said...

El C, I appreciate your thoughtful comment, especially the way you always take me to task!
I disagree with you about Reagan. I love Ronald Reagan and to me the only difference separating Ronny and Bush 43 is that Reagan was articulate and an excellent communicator. All budgets have to be signed off by the President. I remember Orrin Hatch giving the same argument in one of my polly sci classes in college and I asked him the same question...if congress over spends, doesn't the Presidents signature still have to accompany the budget? Of course it does. Under Reagan, the country was in a recession(inherited from Carter) and inflation was rampant and the cold war was heating up. Reagan increased defense spending much like Bush did after 9/11. But in a recession situation economics 101 is always to deficit spend, with discipline of course and Ronny did that, thus a huge deficit, but a short recession. Politics is always accompanied with a quid pro quo and it isn't out of the question that spending creeps in to budgets that every President does not want. It is just the nature of the beast. No disrespect to Ronald, but I think spending is spending and amnesty is amnesty, and Ronald being the more popular President gets a ride and Bush does not. I am a Reagan fan and I am a Bush fan...Reagan just spoke better IMO.
The difference now is that Obama is a runaway train, that we do agree on. Obama added to and gave no time to stimulus packages already in place. His stimulus added dangerous debt and will continue to scare the markets.
Also, I don't consider myself a progressive. I am probably more conservative in some areas than most and I agree this resolution stinks.
I am glad you were set on fire. Fire breathing comments are always the best!! :)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

But in a recession situation economics 101 is always to deficit spend, with discipline of course and Ronny did that, thus a huge deficit, but a short recession.

I don't have a problem with short, temporary deficits when the economy is in the tank. The problem is that we are in a situation where the national debts of our respective countries - the USA and Canada - more or less put the option of deficit spending off the table. If your country's debt to GDP ratio is closing in on 100%, then the crisis is not the recession, but the national debt.

I generally supported President Bush, but one thing he should have done is use his veto pen on spending bills. And he should have run, run, run away from entitlement programs like No Child Gets Ahead and the Medicare expansion he signed into law in December 2003. The country could not afford them when the economy was strong, as the country sure as heck cannot afford them now.

By the way, I've listened to your and Maria's radio show. Nice work - can't wait until you guys are set up to take calls! Heh. Just make sure your toll-free number works from Canada. :) I promise I won't be a hostile caller. At first, anyway.

Nikki said...

El C, You are right, Bush never met a bill he didn't like...but I must in his defense state that in the spirit of "bipartisanship" he made that huge mistake. Nobody ever really wants bipartisan cooperation and in the end your own party will turn on you. I disagree with you on immigration. Living in AZ, I think Bush's plan was far more comprehensive and realistic than Reagan's. These mass deportation people are living a fantasy and I don't think it is right. I think AZ would collapse without the illegal worker.
Thanks for listening to the show and I look forward to speaking with you!! I think it will be fun for us to all get to know each other. Go ahead and be hostile!! WE CAN TAKE IT!! lol :)N

Khaki Elephant said...

Nik, with the exception of your Reagan take I whole heartily agree. One thing I always loved about the GOP is that we were the true party of diversity, a diversity that was more than skin deep. When you looked at the primary contenders for the Republicans during the last presidential primaries you could find everything from hard core conservatives to pro-choice support to John McCain. You'd NEVER find that type of ideological diversity from the left. Ah, but things are changing.

Obama's extremism has ignited a backlash of ultra-conservatism that is backed by people like Rush Limbaugh who make ridiculous statements like "every time a candidates runs as a conservative they win." Unbelievably some people actually believe that.

The strength of the GOP is in ideological diversity that forges a perfected platform. If we move away from that we will suffer. We didn't lose the house, senate and oval office because of McCain and it's time Republicans open their eyes and acknowledge that fact. For God's sake, just look at Obama's campaign! Obama didn't run against McCain . . . if he had he would have lost. Obama's entire campaign was geared against Bush and the perception of extreme conservatism. And in four years he'll run against Bush and extreme conservatism again.

Nikki said...

Great comment Khaki!! I agree and I really do like Ronny...:)N

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Living in AZ, I think Bush's plan was far more comprehensive and realistic than Reagan's. These mass deportation people are living a fantasy and I don't think it is right. I think AZ would collapse without the illegal worker.

The Bush plan, which was supported by Senator John McCain, sought to deal with a huge problem in a certain way. The problem is the presence of a huge (and "hidden") underclass in many parts of the USA, namely illegal immigrants. If a country's underclass reaches a certain critical mass, it's a problem. If a large proportion of the underclass are trying to stay underground, because they are in the country illegally, that's another problem. And I completely understand that providing a path to legality and eventually citizenship would have solved the second problem.

But I am certain that there are huge pitfalls to amnesty. One of these is that Congress and federal agencies will fail to enforce the law afterward, as they promised in 1986. Another is that it will encourage further illegal migration, as migrants will have good reason to believe that they can avoid the red tape and immigrate now, and be given a path to legality later. And mass immigration is not all sweet and rosy, as the multiculturalists would have us believe. There is no longer an impetus to assimilate, but rather an emphasis on our differences. This can lead to social upheaval and discord. And I am sorry to say that importing large numbers of people from the Third World means that a lot of cultural problems in the Third World get imported with them.

There is another way, and I do not mean to suggest mass deportations. Think of it like driving on the Interstate. If the speed limit is 65 m.p.h. but everyone is travelling at 70, that's probably not a big deal. If everyone is going 85 or 90, that's a problem. But the police are not able to stop all the cars. So they simply start stopping some of the cars. By and large, when enforcement is stepped up this way, word gets around and the traffic slows down to something approaching the speed limit.

And so it goes with illegal immigration. If you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. Therefore the first thing to do is secure the borders, and stop the inflow. Then start applying the law: employers who hire illegals should be fined as the law provides. Word will get around, and pretty soon few will be hiring illegal immigrants. And if they cannot find work here, evidence shows that they often leave the country and go home on their own. The ones you deport are the ones arrested for other things, like drunk driving, leaving the scene of an accident, driving without a licence or insurance, or felonious activity, like drug dealing, robberies, shootings, etc. The ones who are causing no trouble really should be left alone, but they should not be permitted to work, and that will prompt them to leave or legalize their status on their own.

And if Arizona's economy is relying on illegal workers and would suffer a collapse without them, then Arizona has both an economic problem and a moral problem. It means the people of the state are exploiting people who should not be in the country, and who probably are not earning any more than a bare subsistance wage, if that. But I doubt the economy would be in serious trouble if the illegals stopped working: there would be more jobs for legal citizens, and average wages would rise. This could result in some cost-push inflation, but it is nothing compared to the inflation that is going to hit the USA in three to six years' time, when the debt and currency problems come home to roost and interest rates go through the roof.

Getting rid of illegal workers is the least of Arizona's (and the USA's) economic worries.

Nikki said...

El C, imagine if you will a hot summer day. Imagine again that it is not just hot but 116 degrees hot. The average here in the summer is right around 110, give or take a few degrees...and I am not exaggerating. I was in downtown Phoenix this summer and my car temp said 118. Of course I was in traffic and the congested city, but it was hot hot hot. There isn't a white person in this country who would do home construction, road construction or landscaping in that weather without major bitching and moaning. Most white people were raised in a union and entitled country where a work ethic is lacking. I have friends in the construction business who say they can't get white workers to show up for work. Mexicans work hard and they are paid pretty well. Owners of these types of companies would love a guest worker program like Bush offered, so they could give benefits and pay correct taxes. Believe it or not, there is work the illegal and legal Mexican will do that white Americans will not. Farming is another one. I am not saying these workers should be abused or taken advantage of, but they do a lot for us here in AZ and I would love to see a guest worker program here. It would give hard working illegals a chance to come correct and at the same time become citizens legally. :)N

Sandi said...

I'm so tired of people on the far ends of the spectrum. One side wants us to go back to the 1950's nd the other wants us to become one giant Haight/Ashbury. I keep looking for a candidate (party doesn't matter) who seems to truly care about what's best for the majority of the people and the country as a whole and not just what will push his/her personal agenda forward. So far, nothing.

Nikki said...

Well said Sandi!! :)N

namaste said...

our fearless leader has brought out the extremist on both sides. did ronnie really spend like a "whore with a stolen credit card"? LOL! i wasn't really paying attention back then.